Complete  Works  of 
Abraham  Lincoln 


ANNIVERSARY    EDITION 

This  Edition  is  limited  to  one  thousand 
numbered  and  registered  sets. 


Complete  Works  of 

Abraham  Lincoln 


Edited  by 
JOHN  G.  NlCOLAY  and  JOHN  HAY 


With  a  General  Introduction  by 

RICHARD  WATSON  GILDER,  and  Special  Articles 

by  OTHER  EMINENT  PERSONS 


New  and  Enlarged  Edition 


VOLUME    IV 


New  York 
THE  LAMB  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 


Copyright,   1894,   by 
JOHN  G.  NICOLAY  and  JOHN  HAY 

Copyright,   1905,   by 
FRANCIS    D.  TANDY 


The  Greatness  of  Lincoln/ 

THERE  are  subjects  upon  which  nothing 
new  can  be  said,  but  which  still  arouse 
the  fervor  awakened  at  their  first 
enunciation.  If  the  song  was  true  when  it 
started  on  its  journey  it  will  be  sung  as  long  as 
human  hearts  vibrate  and  tongues  retain  the  gift 
of  speech.  It  will  be  lisped  by  those  who  are 
tottering  on  toward  the  end,  and  echoed  by  those 
whose  hearts  are  filled  with  the  promise  and  the 
glow  of  youth.  If  the  product  was  genuine 
when  it  passed  from  the  Creator's  hand  it  will 
neither  be  dimmed  by  age  nor  cheapened  by 
familiarity:  for  honor  is  not  decreased  by  con 
tact,  and  truth  is  never  out  of  tune. 

If  none  of  the  old  stories  are  ever  to  be  re-told, 
many  a  noble  inspiration  must  be  lost,  and  many 
a  tender  chord  must  remain  untouched. 

This  is  the  age,  I  know,  when  the  search  is  at 
its  height  for  the  new  and  marvelous,  and  in  this 
eagerness  the  primeval  forests  are  swept  away, 
the  bowels  of  the  earth  are  punctured,  and  even 

*An   address   delivered  before  the  Republican  Club   of  New 
York  City,  February  12,  1903. 


vi         The  Greatness  of  Lincoln 

on  the  remotest  sea  the  observant  eye  detects  the 
flutter  of  a  sail.  The  watchword  is  energy,  the 
goal  is  success,  but  in  the  fever  of  modern  enter 
prise  a  moment's  rest  can  do  no  harm.  We  must 
not  only  acquire,  we  must  retain.  We  must  not 
only  learn,  we  must  remember.  The  newest  is 
not  always  the  best.  The  date  or  lustre  of  the 
coin  does  not  determine  its  metal.  The  sub 
stance  may  be  plain  and  unobtrusive,  and  still  be 
gold.  Whoever  chooses  without  a  proper  test 
may  die  both  a  pauper  and  a  fool.  The  paint 
ings  of  recent  times  have  evoked  the  praise  of 
critics,  and  yet  thousands  still  pay  their  homage 
to  an  older  genius.  Modern  literature  is  ablaze 
with  beauty  and  with  power,  and  yet  millions 
are  still  going  to  one  old  and  thumbworn  text 
for  their  final  consolation. 

Remembering  the  force  of  these  examples,  it 
will  be  profitable  sometimes  to  step  one  side  for 
the  serious  contemplation  of  rugged,  lasting 
qualities  in  whatever  age  or  garb  they  haye  ap 
peared.  The  hero  of  an  hour  will  pass  as 
quickly  as  he  came.  The  flashlight  will  dazzle 
and  blind,  but  when  the  eyes  are  rubbed  the  im 
pression  has  passed  away,  but  the  landscape  that 
comes  slowly  into  view  with  the  rising  sun, 
growing  more  resplendent  and  distinct  with  his 
ascending  power,  and  fading  gently  from  the 
vision  at  the  approach  of  night,  will  remain  in 


The  Greatness  of  Lincoln       vii 

the  mind  forever  to  illuminate,  to  strengthen  and 
to  cheer.  And  men  are  like  impressions. 
There  are  more  examples  of  the  flashlight  kind 
than  there  are  fireflies  on  a  summer's  night,  but 
there  is  no  nobler  representative  of  the  endur 
ing  and  immortal  than  he  in  whose  name  this 
event  is  celebrated.1  Whoever  imparts  a  new 
view  of  his  character  must  tell  it  to  the  newborn, 
to  whom  all  things  are  new,  for  to  the  intelligent 
and  mature  his  name  and  virtues  have  been  long 
familiar.  His  was  the  power  that  commanded 
admiration  and  the  humanity  that  invited  love ; 
mild  but  inflexible,  just  but  merciful,  great  but 
simple,  he  possessed  a  head  that  commanded 
men  and  a  heart  that  attracted  babes.  His  con 
science  was  strong  enough  to  bear  continual  use. 
It  was  not  alone  for  public  occasions  nor  great 
emergencies.  It  was  never  a  capital,  but  al 
ways  a  chart.  It  was  never  his  servant,  to  be 
dismissed  at  will,  but  his  companion  to  be  al 
ways  at  his  side.  It  was  with  him,  but  never 
behind  him,  for  he  knew  that  a  pursuing  con 
science  is  an  accuser,  and  not  a  guide,  and  brings 
remorse  instead  of  comfort. 

He  wore  the  crown  of  power  with  justice, 
reason  and  mercy,  and  faced  defeat  with  humil 
ity  and  courage. 

His  greatness  did  not  depend  upon  his  title, 

1  Lincoln's  birthday. 


viii      The  Greatness  of  Lincoln 

for  greatness  was  his  when  the  title  was  bestowed. 
He  leaned  upon  no  fiction  of  nobility,  and  kissed 
no  hand  to  obtain  his  rank,  but  the  stamp  of 
nobility  and  power  which  he  wore  was  conferred 
upon  him  in  that  log  hut  in  Kentucky,  that  day 
in  1809,  when  he  and  Nancy  Hanks  were  first 
seen  there  together,  and  it  was  conferred  by  a 
power  which,  unlike  earthly  potentates,  never 
confers  a  title  without  a  character  that  will 
adorn  it.  When  we  understand  the  tremendous 
advantages  of  a  humble  birth,  when  we  realize 
that  the  privations  of  youth  are  the  pillars  of 
strength  to  maturer  years,  then  we  shall  cease 
to  wonder  that  out  of  such  obscure  surroundings 
as  watched  the  coming  of  Abraham  Lincoln 
should  spring  the  colossal  and  supreme  figure 
of  modern  history. 

Groves  are  better  than  temples,  fields  are  bet 
ter  than  gorgeous  carpetings,  rail  fences  are  bet 
ter  than  lines  of  kneeling  slaves,  and  the  winds 
are  better  than  music  if  you  are  raising  heroes 
and  founding  governments. 

Those  who  understand  these  things  and  have 
felt  the  heart  of  nature  beat  will  not  wonder  that 
this  man  could  stand  the  shock  and  fury  of  war, 
and  yet  maintain  that  calm  serenity  which 
enabled  him  to  hear  above  the  roar  of  the  storm 
that  enveloped  him,  the  low,  smothered  cry  that 
demanded  the  freedom  of  a  race. 


The  Greatness  of  Lincoln         ix 

If  you  look  for  attributes  that  dazzle  and  be 
wilder  you  must  seek  them  elsewhere  than  in 
the  character  of  Abraham  Lincoln.  It  was  not 
by  show  or  glitter  or  by  sound  that  the  great 
moments  of  history  were  marked  and  the  great 
deeds  of  mankind  were  wrought.  The  color 
counts  for  nothing;  it  is  the  fibre  alone  that  lasts. 
The  precept  will  be  forgotten  unless  the  deed 
is  remembered.  The  wildest  strains  of  martial 
music  will  pass  away  on  the  wind,  while  the 
grim  and  deadly  courage  of  the  soldier,  moving 
and  acting  without  a  word,  will  mark  the  spot 
where  pilgrims  of  every  race  will  linger  and 
worship  forever. 

No  character  in  the  world  more  clearly  saw 
the  worth  of  substance  and  the  mockery  of  show, 
and  no  career  ever  set  in  such  everlasting  light 
and  doctrine,  that  although  vanity  and  pretense 
may  flourish  for  a  day,  there  can  be  no  lasting 
triumph  not  founded  on  the  truth. 

The  life  of  Lincoln  moved  upon  that  high, 
consistent  plane  which  the  surroundings  of  his 
youth  inspired.  Poverty  is  a  hard  but  often 
times  a  loving  nurse.  If  fortune  denies  the  lux 
uries  of  wealth,  she  makes  generous  compensa 
tion  in  that  greater  love  which  they  alone  can 
know  who  have  faced  privations  together.  The 
child  may  shiver  in  the  fury  of  the  blast  which 
no  maternal  tenderness  can  shield  him  from,  but 


x          The  Greatness  of  Lincoln 

he  may  feel  a  helpless  tear  drop  upon  his  cheek 
which  will  keep  him  warm  till  the  snows  of  time 
have  covered  his  hair.  It  is  not  wealth  that 
counts  in  the  making  of  the  world,  but  character. 
And  character  is  best  formed  amid  those  sur 
roundings  where  every  waking  hour  is  filled 
with  struggle,  where  no  flag  of  truce  is  ever  sent, 
and  only  darkness  stays  the  conflict.  Give  me 
the  hut  that  is  small  enough,  the  poverty  that  is 
deep  enough,  the  love  that  is  great  enough,  and 
I  will  raise  from  them  the  best  there  is  in  human 
character. 

This  lad,  uncouth  and  poorr  without  aid  or  ac 
cidental  circumstance,  rising  as  steadily  as  the 
sun,  marked  a  path  across  the  sky  so  luminous 
and  clear  that  there  is  not  one  to  mate  it  to  be 
discovered  in  the  heavens,  and  throughout  its 
whole  majestic  length  there  is  no  spot  or  blem 
ish  in  it. 

The  love  of  justice  and  fair  play,  and  that 
respect  for  order  and  the  law,  which  must  un 
derlie  every  nation  that  would  long  endure,  were 
deeply  embedded  in  his  nature.  These  I  know 
are  qualities  destitute  of  show  and  whose  names 
are  never  set  to  music,  but  unless  there  is  in  the 
people's  heart  a  deep  sense  of  their  everlasting 
value,  that  people  will  neither  command  respect 
in  times  of  their  prosperity  nor  sympathy  in  the 
hour  of  their  decay.  These  are  the  qualities  that 


The  Greatness  of  Lincoln         xi 

stand  the  test  when  hurricanes  sweep  by.  These 
are  the  joints  of  oak  that  ride  the  storm  and  when 
the  clouds  have  melted  and  the  waves  are  still, 
move  on  serenely  in  their  course.  Times  will 
come  when  nothing  but  the  best  can  save  us. 
Without  warning  and  without  cause,  out  of  a 
clear  and  smiling  sky  may  descend  the  bolt  that 
will  scatter  the  weaker  qualities  to  the  winds. 
We  have  seen  that  bolt  descend.  There  is  dan 
ger  at  such  a  time.  The  hurricane  will  pass  like 
the  rushing  of  the  sea.  Then  is  the  time  to  de 
termine  whether  governments  can  stand  amid 
such  perilous  surroundings. 

The  American  character  has  been  often 
proved  superior  to  any  test.  No  danger  can  be 
so  great  and  no  calamity  so  sudden  as  to  throw 
it  off  its  guard.  This  great  strength  in  times  of 
trial,  and  this  self-restraint  in  times  of  wild  ex 
citement  have  been  attained  by  years  of  train 
ing,  precept  and  experience.  Justice  has  so 
often  emerged  triumphant  from  obstacles  which 
seemed  to  chain  her  limbs  and  make  the  right 
eous  path  impossible,  that  there  is  now  rooted 
in  the  American  heart,  the  faith  that  no  mat 
ter  how  dark  the  night,  there  will  somehow 
break  through  at  the  appointed  hour,  a  light 
which  shall  reveal  to  eager  eyes  the  upright 
forms  of  Justice  and  the  law,  still  moving  hand 
in  hand,  still  supreme  over  chaos  and  despair, 


xii        The  Greatness  of  Lincoln 

the  image  and  the  substance  of  the  world's  sub 
lime  reliance. 

I  should  not  try,  if  all  the  time  were  mine, 
to  present  Lincoln  as  an  orator,  a  lawyer,  a 
statesman  or  a  politician.  His  name  and  his 
performances  in  the  lines  which  he  pursued 
have  been  cut  into  the  rock  of  American  history 
with  the  deepest  chisel  yet  made  use  of  on  this 
continent. 

But  it  is  not  by  the  grandeur  of  his  powers 
that  he  has  most  appealed  to  me,  but  rather  by 
those  softer,  homelier  traits  that  bring  him  down 
to  a  closer  and  more  affectionate  view. 

The  mountain  that  crowds  its  summit  to  the 
clouds  is  never  so  magnificent  to  the  observer  on 
the  plain  below,  as  when  by  some  clear  and 
kindly  light  its  smaller  outlines  are  revealed. 

And  Lincoln  was  never  more  imposing  than 
when  the  milder  attributes  of  his  nature  were 
exposed.  He  was  genuine ;  he  was  affectionate ; 
and  after  all  is  said  and  the  end  is  reached,  what 
is  there  without  these  two?  You  may  measure 
the  heights  and  sound  the  depths ;  you  may  gain 
the  great  rewards  of  power  and  renown;  you 
may  quiver  under  the  electric  current  of  applause 
— the  time  will  come  when  these  will  fall  from 
you  like  the  rags  that  cover  your  body.  The 
robes  of  power  and  the  husks  of  pretense  will 
alike  be  stripped  away,  and  you  must  stand  at 


The  Greatness  of  Lincoln       xiii 

the  end  as  you  stood  at  the  beginning,  revealed. 
Under  such  a  test  Abraham  Lincoln  might  stand 
erect,  for  no  man  loved  the  humbler,  nobler 
traits  more  earnestly  than  he.  Whatever  he  pre 
tended  to  be,  he  was;  genuine  and  sincere,  he 
did  not  need  embellishment. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  world  which  needs 
so  little  decoration  or  which  can  so  well  afford 
to  spurn  it  altogether  as  the  absolutely  genuine. 
Imitations  are  likely  to  be  exposed  unless  care 
fully  ornamented.  Too  much  embellishment 
generally  covers  a  blemish  in  the  construction. 
It  therefore  happens  that  the  first  rate  invariably 
rejects  adornment  and  the  second  rate  invariably 
puts  it  on. 

The  difference  between  the  two  can  be  dis 
covered  at  short  range,  and  safety  from  exposure 
lies  only  in  imperfect  examination.  If  the  vis 
ion  is  clear  and  the  inspection  careful,  there  is 
no  chance  for  the  sham  ever  to  be  taken  for  the 
genuine,  and  that  is  why  it  happens  that  among 
all  the  forms  of  activity  in  this  very  active  age, 
no  struggle  is  more  sharp  than  that  of  the  first 
rate  to  be  found  out  and  of  the  second  not  to  be. 
It  is  easier  to  conceal  what  a  thing  is  than  to 
prove  it  to  be  what  it  is  not.  One  requires  only 
concealment,  the  other  demonstration.  Sooner 
or  later  the  truth  will  appear.  Some  time  the 
decorations  will  fall  off,  and  then  the  blemish 


xiv       The  Greatness  of  Lincoln 

will  appear  greater  because  of  the  surprise  at 
finding  it. 

None  have  less  to  fear  from  such  a  test  than 
Abraham  Lincoln,  and  his  strength  in  that  re 
gard  arose,  it  seems  to  me,  from  the  preservation 
through  all  his  life  of  that  fondness  for  his  early 
home,  of  the  tender  recollections  of  his  family 
and  their  struggles,  which  kept  his  sympathy  al 
ways  warm  and  young.  He  was  never  so  great 
but  that  the  ties  of  his  youth  still  bound  him. 
He  was  never  so  far  away  but  that  he  could  still 
hear  the  note  of  the  evening  bird  in  the  groves 
of  his  nativity. 

They  say  the  tides  of  the  ocean  ebb  and  flow 
by  a  force  which,  though  remote,  always  retains 
its  power.  And  so  with  this  man,  whether  he 
rose  or  fell ;  whether  he  stood  in  that  giant-like 
repose  that  distinguished  him  among  his  fellow- 
men,  or  exercised  those  unequaled  powers, 
which,  to  my  mind,  made  him  the  foremost 
figure  of  the  world,  yet  he  always  felt  the  ten 
der  and  invisible  chord  that  chained  him  to  his 
native  rock.  In  whatever  field  he  stood  he  felt 
the  benign  and  sobering  influences  of  his  early 
recollections.  They  were  the  rock  to  which  he 
clung  in  storms,  the  anchor  which  kept  his  head 
to  the  wind,  the  balm  which  sustained  him  in 
defeat  and  ennobled  him  in  the  hour  of  triumph. 

I  shall  not  say  he  had  his  faults,  for  is  there 


The  Greatness  of  Lincoln        xv 

any  hope  that  man  will  pass  through  this  vale 
of  tears  without  them?  Is  there  any  danger  that 
his  fellowmen  will  fail  to  detect  and  proclaim 
them?  He  was  not  small  in  anything.  He  was 
carved  in  deep  lines,  like  all  heroic  figures,  for 
dangerous  altitudes  and  great  purposes.  And 
as  we  move  away  from  him,  and  years  and 
events  pass  between  us,  his  form  will  still  be  vis 
ible  and  distinct,  for  such  characters  built  upon 
courage  and  faith,  and  that  affection  which  is 
the  seed  of  both,  are  not  the  plaything,  but  the 
masters  of  time. 

How  long  the  names  of  men  will  last  no  hu 
man  foresight  can  discover,  but  I  believe  that 
even  against  the  havoc  and  confusion  in  which 
so  many  names  go  down,  the  fame  of  Lincoln 
will  stand  as  immovable  and  as  long  as  the  pyra 
mids  against  the  rustle  of  the  Egyptian  winds. 


Lincoln.1 

BY  PAUL  LAURENCE  DUNBAR 

Hurt  was  the  Nation  with  a  mighty  wound, 

And  all  her  ways  were  filled  with  clam'rous  sound. 

Wailed  loud  the  South  with  unremitting  grief, 

And  wept  the  North  that  could  not  find  relief. 

Then  madness  joined  its  harshest  tone  to  strife  : 

A  minor  note  swelled  in  the  song  of  life 

Till,  stirring  with  the  love  that  filled  his  breast, 

But  still,  unflinching  at  the  Right's  behest 

Grave  Lincoln  came,  strong-handed,  from  afar,— 

The  mighty  Homer  of  the  lyre  of  war! 

'Twas  he  who  bade  the  raging  tempest  cease, 

Wrenched  from  his  strings  the  harmony  of  peace, 

Muted  the  strings  that  made  the  discord,  —  Wrong, 

And  gave  his  spirit  up  in  thunderous  song. 

Oh,  mighty  Master  of  the  mighty  lyre  ! 

Earth  heard  and  trembled  at  thy  strains  of  fire: 

Earth  learned  of  thee  what  Heav'n  already  knew, 

And  wrote  thee  down  among  her  treasured  few! 


"The   Memory  of  Lincoln,"  copyrighted,   1899,   by 
Small,  Maynard  and  Co. 


xvii 


Illustrations 


ABRAHAM  LINCOLN Frontispiece 

Photogravure  from  photograph  by  Brady  in  New  York  in  1860 

PAGE 

JOHN  BROWN 30 

Wood-engraving  from  a  photograph  by  J.    W.    Black  &  Co. 

GLOBE  TAVERN,  SPRINGFIELD,  ILL 88 

From  the  original  photograph  in  the  possession    of  the  O.    H. 
Oldroyd  Lincoln  Memorial  Collection,   Washington,  D.  C. 

SALMON  P.  CHASE 224 

Wood-engraving  from  the  original  photograph  by   Bendann. 

LINCOLN'S  LETTER  TO  T.  J.  PICKETT,  APRIL  16, 

1859  • 334 

Fac -simile  of  the  original  letter. 


Complete   Works  of 
Abraham  Lincoln 

Volume   IV 
[Sept. — Oct.   1858] 


Complete  Works  of 
Abraham   Lincoln 


THIRD  JOINT  DEBATE,  AT  JONESBORO,  ILLINOIS, 
September  15,  1858. 

Mr.  Douglas's  Opening  Speech. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:    I  ap 
pear  before  you  to-day  in  pursuance  of 
a  previous  notice,  and  have  made  ar 
rangements  with  Mr.  Lincoln  to  divide  time, 
and  discuss  with  him  the  leading  political  topics 
that  now  agitate  the  country. 

Prior  to  1854  tms  country  was  divided  into 
two  great  political  parties  known  as  Whig  and 
Democratic.  These  parties  differed  from  each 
other  on  certain  questions  which  were  then 
deemed  to  be  important  to  the  best  interests  of 
the  republic.  Whigs  and  Democrats  differed 
about  a  bank,  the  tariff,  distribution,  the  specie 
circular,  and  the  subtreasury.  On  those  issues 
we  went  before  the  country,  and  discussed  the 


2  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Sept.  15 

principles,  objects,  and  measures  of  the  two  great 
parties.     Each  of  the  parties  could  proclaim  its 
principles  in  Louisiana  as  well  as  in  Massachu 
setts,  in  Kentucky  as  well  as  in  Illinois.     Since 
that  period,  a  great  revolution  has  taken  place 
in  the  formation  of  parties,  by  which  they  now 
seem  to  be  divided  by  a  geographical  line,  a 
large  party  in  the  North  being  arrayed  under 
the  Abolition  or  Republican  banner,  in  hostility 
to  the  Southern  States,  Southern  people,  and 
Southern    institutions.     It   becomes    important 
for  us  to  inquire  how  this  transformation  of  par 
ties  has  occurred,  made  from  those  of  national 
principles  to  geographical  factions.     You   re 
member  that  in  1850 — this  country  was  agitated 
from  its  center  to  its  circumference  about  this 
slavery  question — it  became  necessary  for  the 
leaders  of  the  great  Whig  party  and  the  leaders 
of  the  great  Democratic  party  to  postpone  for 
the  time  being  their  particular  disputes,  and 
unite  first  to  save  the  Union  before  they  should 
quarrel  as  to  the  mode  in  which  it  was  to  be 
governed.     During   the   Congress   of    1849-50, 
Henry  Clay  was  the  leader  of  the  Union  men, 
supported  by  Cass  and  Webster,  and  the  leaders 
of  the  Democracy  and  the  leaders  of  the  Whigs, 
in    opposition    to    Northern    Abolitionists    or 
Southern  Disunionists.     The  great  contest  of 
1850  resulted  in  the  establishment  of  the  com- 


1858]         Speech  at  Jonesboro  3 

promise  measures  of  that  year,  which  measures 
rested  on  the  great  principle  that  the  people  of 
each  State  and  each  Territory  of  this  Union 
ought  to  be  permitted  to  regulate  their  own 
domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject 
to  no  other  limitation  than  that  which  the  Fed 
eral  Constitution  imposes. 

I  now  wish  to  ask  you  whether  that  principle 
was  right  or  wrong  which  guaranteed  to  every 
State  and  every  community  the  right  to  form 
and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  to  suit 
themselves.  These  measures  were  adopted,  as 
I  have  previously  said,  by  the  joint  action  of 
the  Union  Whigs  and  Union  Democrats  in  op 
position  to  Northern  Abolitionists  and  South 
ern  Disunionists.  In  1858,  when  the  Whig  par 
ty  assembled  at  Baltimore  in  national  conven 
tion  for  the  last  time,  they  adopted  the  princi 
ple  of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850  as  their 
rule  of  party  action  in  the  future.  One  month 
thereafter  the  Democrats  assembled  at  the  same 
place  to  nominate  a  candidate  for  the  presi 
dency,  and  declared  the  same  great  principle 
as  the  rule  of  action  by  which  the  Democracy 
would  be  governed.  The  presidential  election 
of  1852  was  fought  on  that  basis.  It  is  true  that 
the  Whigs  claimed  special  merit  for  the  adop 
tion  of  those  measures,  because  they  asserted 
that  their  great  Clay  originated  them,  their  god- 


4  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Sept.  15 

like  Webster  defended  them,  and  their  Fillmore 
signed  the  bill  making  them  the  law  of  the  land ; 
but  on  the  other  hand,  the  Democrats  claimed 
special  credit  for  the  Democracy  upon  the 
ground  that  we  gave  twice  as  many  votes  in  both 
houses  of  Congress  for  the  passage  of  these  meas 
ures  as  the  Whig  party. 

Thus  you  see  that  in  the  presidential  election 
of  1852  the  Whigs  were  pledged  by  their  plat 
form  and  their  candidate  to  the  principle  of  the 
compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  the  Democ 
racy  were  likewise  pledged  by  our  principles, 
our  platform,  and  our  candidate  to  the  same  line 
of  policy,  to  preserve  peace  and  quiet  between 
the  different  sections  of  this  Union.  Since  that 
period  the  Whig  party  has  been  transformed 
into  a  sectional  party,  under  the  name  of  the 
Republican  party,  whilst  the  Democratic  party 
continues  the  same  national  party  it  was  at  that 
day. 

All  sectional  men,  all  men  of  Abolition  senti 
ments  and  principles,  no  matter  whether  they 
were  old  Abolitionists  or  had  been  Whigs  or 
Democrats,  rally  under  the  sectional  Repub 
lican  banner,  and  consequently  all  national  men, 
all  Union-loving  men,  whether  Whigs,  Demo 
crats,  or  by  whatever  name  they  have  been 
known,  ought  to  rally  under  the  Stars  and 
Stripes  in  defense  of  the  Constitution  as  our 


Speech  at  Jonesboro  5 

fathers  made  it,  and  of  the  Union  as  it  has  ex 
isted  under  the  Constitution. 

How  has  this  departure  from  the  faith  of  the 
Democracy  and  the  faith  of  the  Whig  party 
been  accomplished?  In  185^,  certain  restless, 
ambitious,  and  disappointed  politicians  through 
out  the  land  took  advantage  of  the  temporary 
excitement  created  by  the  Nebraska  bill  to  try 
and  dissolve  the  Old  Whig  party  and  the  old 
Democratic  party,  to  Abolitionize  their  mem 
bers,  and  lead  them,  bound  hand  and  foot,  cap 
tives  into  the  Abolition  camp.  In  the  State  of 
New  York  a  convention  was  held  by  some  of 
these  men,  and  a  platform  adopted,  every  plank 
of  which  was  as  black  as  night,  each  one  relating 
to  the  negro,  and  not  one  referring  to  the  inter 
ests  of  the  white  man.  That  example  was  fol 
lowed  throughout  the  Northern  States,  the  ef 
fort  being  made  to  combine  all  the  free  States 
in  hostile  array  against  the  slave  States.  The 
men  who  thus  thought  that  they  could  build  up 
a  great  sectional  party,  and  through  its  organi 
zation  control  the  political  destinies  of  this  coun 
try,  based  all  their  hopes  on  the  single  fact  that 
the  North  was  the  stronger  division  of  the  na 
tion,  and  hence,  if  the  North  could  be  combined 
against  the  South,  a  sure  victory  awaited  their 
efforts.  I  am  doing  no  more  than  justice  to  the 
truth  of  history  when  I  say  that  in  this  State 


6  Stephen   A.   Douglas     [Sept.  15 

Abraham  Lincoln,  on  behalf  of  the  Whigs,  and 
Lyman  Trumbull,  on  behalf  of  the  Democrats, 
were  the  leaders  who  undertook  to  perform  this 
grand  scheme  of  Abolitionizing  the  two  parties 
to  which  they  belonged.  They  had  a  private 
arrangement  as  to  what  should  be  the  political 
destiny  of  each  of  the  contracting  parties  before 
they  went  into  the  operation.  The  arrangement 
was  that  Mr.  Lincoln  was  to  take  the  old-line 
Whigs  with  him,  claiming  that  he  was  still  as 
good  a  Whig  as  ever,  over  to  the  Abolitionists, 
and  Mr.  Trumbull  was  to  run  for  Congress  in 
the  Belleville  district,  and,  claiming  to  be  a 
good  Democrat,  coax  the  old  Democrats  into 
the  Abolition  camp,  and  when,  by  the  joint  ef 
forts  of  the  Abolitionized  Whigs,  the  Abolition- 
ized  Democrats,  and  the  old-line  Abolition  and 
Free-soil  party  of  this  State,  they  should  secure 
a  majority  in  the  legislature,  Lincoln  was  then 
to  be  made  United  States  senator  in  Shields's 
place,  Trumbull  remaining  in  Congress  until  I 
should  be  accommodating  enough  to  die  or  re 
sign,  and  give  him  a  chance  to  follow  Lincoln. 
That  was  a  very  nice  little  bargain  so  far  as 
Lincoln  and  Trumbull  were  concerned,  if  it 
had  been  carried  out  in  good  faith,  and  friend 
Lincoln  had  attained  to  senatorial  dignity  ac 
cording  to  contract.  They  went  into  the  con 
test  in  every  part  of  the  State,  calling  upon  all 


1858]         Speech  at   Jonesboro  7 

disappointed  politicians  to  join  in  the  crusade 
against  the  Democracy,  and  appealed  to  the  pre 
vailing  sentiments  and  prejudices  in  all  the 
northern  counties  of  the  State.  In  three  con 
gressional  districts  in  the  north  end  of  the  State 
they  adopted,  as  the  platform  of  this  new  party 
thus  formed  by  Lincoln  and  Trumbull  in  con 
nection  with  the  Abolitionists,  all  of  those  prin 
ciples  which  aimed  at  a  warfare  on  the  part  of 
the  North  against  the  South.  They  declared  in 
that  platform  that  the  Wilmot  proviso  was  to  be 
applied  to  all  the  Territories  of  the  United 
States,  North  as  well  as  South  of  36  degrees 
30  minutes,  and  not  only  to  all  the  territory  we 
then  had,  but  all  that  we  might  hereafter  ac 
quire;  that  hereafter  no  more  slave  States  should 
be  admitted  into  this  Union,  even  if  the  people 
of  such  States  desired  slavery;  that  the  fugitive- 
slave  law  should  be  absolutely  and  uncondition 
ally  repealed;  that  slavery,  should  be  abolished 
in  the  District  of  Columbia ;  that  the  slave-trade 
should  be  abolished  between  the  different  States, 
and,  in  fact,  every  article  in  their  creed  related 
to  this  slavery  question,  and  pointed  to  a  North 
ern  geographical  party  in  hostility  to  the  South 
ern  States  of  this  Union. 

Such  were  their  principles  in  northern  Illi 
nois.  A  little  further  south  they  became 
bleached  and  grew  paler  just  in  proportion  as 


8  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Sept.  15 

public  sentiment  moderated  and  changed  in  this 
direction.  There  were  Republicans  or  Aboli 
tionists  in  the  North,  anti-Nebraska  men  down 
about  Springfield,  and  in  this  neighborhood 
they  contented  themselves  with  talking  about 
the  inexpediency  of  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise.  In  the  extreme  northern  coun 
ties  they  brought  out  men  to  canvass  the  State 
whose  complexion  suited  their  political  creed, 
and  hence  Fred  Douglass,  the  negro,  was  to  be 
found  there,  following  General  Cass,  and  at 
tempting  to  speak  on  behalf  of  Lincoln,  Trum- 
bull,  and  Abolitionism,  against  that  illustrious 
senator.  Why,  they  brought  Fred  Douglass  to 
Freeport,  when  I  was  addressing  a  meeting 
there,  in  a  carriage  driven  by  the  white  owner, 
the  negro  sitting  inside  with  the  white  lady  and 
her  daughter.  When  I  got  through  canvassing 
the  northern  counties  that  year,  and  progressed 
as  far  south  as  Springfield,  I  was  met  and  op 
posed  in  discussion  by  Lincoln,  Lovejoy,  Trum- 
bull,  and  Sidney  Breese,  who  were  on  one  side. 
Father  Giddings,  the  high  priest  of  Abolition 
ism,  had  just  been  there,  and  Chase  came  about 
the  time  I  left.  ["Why  didn't  you  shoot 
him?"]  I  did  take  a  running  shot  at  them,  but 
as  I  was  single-handed  against  the  white,  black, 
and  mixed  drove,  I  had  to  use  a  shot-gun  and 
fire  into  the  crowd  instead  of  taking  them  off 


1858]          Speech  at  Jonesboro  9 

singly  with  a  rifle.  Trumbull  had  for  his  lieu 
tenants  in  aiding  him  to  Abolitionize  the  De 
mocracy,  such  men  as  John  Wentworth  of  Chi 
cago,  Governor  Reynolds  of  Belleville,  Sidney 
Breese  of  Carlisle,  and  John  Dougherty  of 
Union,  each  of  whom  modified  his  opinions  to 
suit  the  locality  he  was  in.  Dougherty,  for  in 
stance,  would  not  go  much  further  than  to  talk 
about  the  inexpediency  of  the  Nebraska  bill, 
whilst  his  allies  at  Chicago  advocated  negro 
citizenship  and  negro  equality,  putting  the 
white  man  and  the  negro  on  the  same  basis  un 
der  the  law.  Now  these  men,  four  years  ago, 
were  engaged  in  a  conspiracy  to  break  down  the 
Democracy;  to-day  they  are  again  acting  to 
gether  for  the  same  purpose!  They  do  not  hoist 
the  same  flag;  they  do  not  own  the  same  princi 
ples,  or  profess  the  same  faith;  but  conceal  their 
union  for  the  sake  of  policy. 

In  the  northern  counties  you  find  that  all  the 
conventions  are  called  in  the  name  of  the  Black 
Republican  party;  at  Springfield  they  dare  not 
call  a  Republican  convention,  but  invite  all  the 
enemies  of  the  Democracy  to  unite,  and  when 
they  get  down  into  Egypt,  Trumbull  issues 
notices  calling  upon  the  "Free  Democracy"  to 
assemble  and  hear  him  speak.  I  have  one  of  the 
hand-bills  calling  a  Trumbull  meeting  at  Water- 


io  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Sept.  15 

loo  the  other  day,  which  I  received  there,  which 
is  in  the  following  language : 

A  meeting  of  the  Free  Democracy  will  take  place 
in  Waterloo,  on  Monday,  Sept.  I3th  inst.,  whereat 
Hon.  Lyman  Trumbull,  Hon.  Jehu  Baker,  and  others 
will  address  the  people  upon  the  different  political 
topics  of  the  day.  Members  of  all  parties  are  cor 
dially  invited  to  be  present  and  hear  and  determine 
for  themselves. 

THE  MONROE  FREE  DEMOCRACY. 

What  is  that  name  of  "Free  Democrats"  put 
forth  for  unless  to  deceive  the  people,  and  make 
them  believe  that  Trumbull  and  his  followers 
are  not  the  same  party  as  that  which  raises  tfie 
black  flag  of  Abolitionism  in  the  northern  part 
of  this  State,  and  makes  war  upon  the  Demo 
cratic  party  throughout  the  State.  When  I  put 
that  question  to  them  at  Waterloo  on  Saturday 
last,  one  of  them  rose  and  stated  that  they  had 
changed  their  name  for  political  effect  in  order 
to  get  votes.  There  was  a  candid  admission. 
Their  object  in  changing  their  party  organiza 
tion  and  principles  in  different  localities  was 
avowed  to  be  an  attempt  to  cheat  and  deceive 
some  portion  of  the  people  until  after  the  elec 
tion.  Why  cannot  a  political  party  that  is  con 
scious  of  the  rectitude  of  its  purposes  and  the 
soundness  of  its  principles  declare  them  every- 


1858]         Speech  at  Jonesboro  n 

where  alike?  I  would  disdain  to  hold  any  po 
litical  principles  that  I  could  not  avow  in  the 
same  terms  in  Kentucky  that  I  declared  in  Illi 
nois,  in  Charleston  as  well  as  in  Chicago,  in 
New  Orleans  as  well  as  in  New  York.  So  long 
as  we  live  under  a  constitution  common  to  all 
the  States,  our  political  faith  ought  to  be  as 
broad,  as  liberal,  and  just  as  that  constitution 
itself,  and  should  be  proclaimed  alike  in  every 
portion  of  the  Union.  But  it  is  apparent  that 
our  opponents  find  it  necessary,  for  partizan 
effect,  to  change  their  colors  in  different  coun 
ties  in  order  to  catch  the  popular  breeze,  and 
hope  with  these  discordant  materials  combined 
together  to  secure  a  majority  in  the  legislature 
for  the  purpose  of  putting  down  the  Democratic 
party.  This  combination  did  succeed  in  1854 
so  far  as  to  elect  a  majority  of  their  confeder 
ates  to  the  legislature,  and  the  first  important 
act  which  they  performed  was  to  elect  a  senator 
in  the  place  of  the  eminent  and  gallant  Senator 
Shields.  His  term  expired  in  the  United  States 
Senate  at  that  time,  and  he  had  to  be  crushed 
by  the  Abolition  coalition  for  the  simple  reason 
that  he  would  not  join  in  their  conspiracy  to 
wage  war  against  one  half  of  the  Union.  That 
was  the  only  objection  to  General  Shields.  He 
had  served  the  people  of  the  State  with  ability 
in  the  legislature,  he  had  served  you  with  fidel- 


\ 

12  Stephen   A.   Douglas     [Sept.  15 

ity  and  ability  as  auditor,  he  had  performed 
his  duties  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  whole  coun 
try  at  the  head  of  the  Land  Department  at 
Washington,  he  had  covered  the  State  and  the 
Union  with  immortal  glory  on  the  bloody  fields 
of  Mexico  in  defense  of  the  honor  of  our  flag, 
and  yet  he  had  to  be  stricken  down  by  this  un 
holy  combination.  And  for  what  cause? 
Merely  because  he  would  not  join  a  combination 
of  one  half  of  the  States  to  make  war  upon  the 
other  half,  after  having  poured  out  his  heart's 
blood  for  all  the  States  in  the  Union.  Trum- 
bull  was  put  in  his  place  by  Abolitionism. 
How  did  Trumbull  get  there? 

Before  the  Abolitionists  would  consent  to  go 
into  an  election  for  United  States  senator,  they 
required  all  the  members  of  this  new  combina 
tion  to  show  their  hands  upon  this  question  of 
Abolitionism.  Lovejoy,  one  of  their  high 
priests,  brought  in  resolutions  defining  the  Abol 
ition  creed,  and  required  them  to  commit  them 
selves  on  it  by  their  votes — yea  or  nay.  In  that 
creed  as  laid  down  by  Lovejoy,  they  declared 
first,  that  the  Wilmot  proviso  must  be  put  on  all 
the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  north  as 
well  as  south  of  36  degrees  30  minutes,  and  that 
no  more  territory  should  ever  be  acquired  unless 
slavery  was  at  first  prohibited  therein;  second, 
that  no  more  States  should  ever  be  received  into 


1858]         Speech  at  Jonesboro  13 

the  Union  unless  slavery  was  first  prohibited,  by 
constitutional  provision,  in  such  States;  third, 
that  the  fugitive-slave  law  must  be  immediately 
repealed,  or,  failing  in  that,  then  such  amend 
ments  were  to  be  made  to  it  as  would  render  it 
useless  and  inefficient  for  the  objects  for  which 
it  was  passed,  etc.  The  next  day  after  these 
resolutions  were  offered  they  were  voted  upon, 
part  of  them  carried,  and  the  others  defeated, 
the  same  men  who  voted  for  them,  with  only  two 
exceptions,  voting  soon  after  for  Abraham  Lin 
coln  as  their  candidate  for  the  United  States 
Senate.  He  came  within  one  or  two  votes  of 
being  elected,  but  he  could  not  quite  get  the 
number  required,  for  the  simple  reason  that  his 
friend  Trumbull,  who  was  a  party  to  the  bar 
gain  by  which  Lincoln  was  to  take  Shield's 
place,  controlled  a  few  Abolitionized  Demo 
crats  in  the  legislature,  and  would  not  allow 
them  all  to  vote  for  him,  thus  wronging  Lin 
coln  by  permitting  him  on  each  ballot  to  be 
almost  elected,  but  not  quite,  until  he  forced 
them  to  drop  Lincoln  and  elect  him  (Trum 
bull),  in  order  to  unite  the  party.  Thus  you 
find  that  although  the  legislature  was  carried 
that  year  by  the  bargain  between  Trumbull, 
Lincoln,  and  the  Abolitionists,  and  the  union  of 
these  discordant  elements  in  one  harmonious 
party,  yet  Trumbull  violated  his  pledge,  and 


H  Stephen   A.   Douglas     [Sept.  15 

played  a  Yankee  trick  on  Lincoln  when  they 
came  to  divide  the  spoils.  Perhaps  you  would 
like  a  little  evidence  on  this  point.  If  you 
would,  I  will  call  Colonel  James  H.  Matheny 
of  Springfield,  to  the  stand,  Mr.  Lincoln's 
especial  confidential  frierad  for  the  last  twenty 
years,  and  see  what  he  will  say  upon  the  subject 
of  this  bargain.  Matheny  is  now  the  Black  Re 
publican  or  Abolition  candidate  for  Congress 
in  the  Springfield  district  against  the  gallant 
Colonel  Harris,  and  is  making  speeches  all  over 
that  part  of  the  State  against  me  and  in  favor  of 
Lincoln,  in  concert  with  Trumbull.  He  ought 
to  be  a  good  witness,  and  I  will  read  an  extract 
from  a  speech  which  he  made  in  1856,  when  he 
was  mad  because  his  friend  Lincoln  had  been 
cheated.  It  is  one  of  numerous  speeches  of  the 
same  tenor  that  were  made  about  that  time,  ex 
posing  this  bargain  between  Lincoln,  Trumbull, 
and  the  Abolitionists.  Matheny  then  said: 

The  Whigs,  Abolitionists,  Know-nothings,  and 
renegade  Democrats  made  a  solemn  compact  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying  this  State  against  the  Democracy, 
on  this  plan :  First,  that  they  would  all  combine  and 
elect  Mr.  Trumbull  to  Congress,  and  thereby  carry 
his  district  for  the  legislature,  in  order  to  throw  all 
the  strength  that  could  be  obtained  into  that  body 
against  the  Democrats;  second,  that  when  the  legis 
lature  should  meet,  the  officers  of  that  body,  such  as 


1858]         Speech  at  Jonesboro  15 

speaker,  clerks,  doorkeepers,  etc.,  would  be  given  to 
the  Abolitionists;  and  third,  that  the  Whigs  were  to 
have  the  United  States  senator.  That,  accordingly, 
in  good  faith,  Trumbull  was  elected  to  Congress,  and 
his  district  carried  for  the  legislature,  and,  when  it 
convened,  the  Abolitionists  got  all  the  officers  of  that 
body,  and  thus  far  the  "  bond  "  was  fairly  executed. 
The  Whigs,  on  their  part,  demanded  the  election  of 
Abraham  Lincoln  to  the  United  States  Senate,  that 
the  bond  might  be  fulfilled,  the  other  parties  to  the 
contract  having  already  secured  to  themselves  all  that 
was  called  for.  But,  in  the  most  perfidious  manner, 
they  refused  to  elect  Mr.  Lincoln;  and  the  mean, 
low-lived,  sneaking  Trumbull  succeeded,  by  pledging 
all  that  was  required  by  any  party,  in  thrusting  Lin 
coln  aside  and  foisting  himself,  an  excrescence  from 
the  rotten  bowels  of  the  Democracy,  into  the  United 
States  Senate;  and  thus  it  has  ever  been,  that  an 
honest  man  makes  a  bad  bargain  when  he  conspires 
or  contracts  with  rogues. 

Matheny  thought  his  friend  Lincoln  made  a 
bad  bargain  when  he  conspired  and  contracted 
with  such  rogues  as  Trumbull  and  his  Abolition 
associates  in  that  campaign.  Lincoln  was 
shoved  off  the  track,  and  he  and  his  friends  all 
at  once  began  to  mope;  became  sour  and  mad, 
and  disposed  to  tell,  but  dare  not;  and  thus  they 
stood  for  a  long  time,  until  the  Abolitionists 
coaxed  and  flattered  him  back  by  their  assur 
ances  that  he  should  certainly  be  a  senator  in 


1 6  Stephen   A.    Douglas      [Sept.  15 

Douglas's  place.  In  that  way  the  Abolitionists 
have  been  able  to  hold  Lincoln  to  the  alliance 
up  to  this  time,  and  now  they  have  brought  him 
into  a  fight  against  me,  and  he  is  to  see  if  he 
is  again  to  be  cheated  by  them.  Lincoln  this 
time,  though,  required  more  of  them  than  a 
promise,  and  holds  their  bond,  if  not  security, 
that  Lovejoy  shall  not  cheat  him  as  Trumbull 
did. 

When  the  Republican  convention  assembled 
at  Springfield  in  June  last,  for  the  purpose  of 
nominating  State  officers  only,  the  Abolitionists 
could  not  get  Lincoln  and  his  friends  into  it 
until  they  would  pledge  themselves  that  Lincoln 
should  be  their  candidate  for  the  Senate;  and 
you  will  find,  in  proof  of  this,  that  that  conven 
tion  passed  a  resolution  unanimously  declaring 
that  Abraham  Lincoln  was  the  "first,  last,  and 
only  choice"  of  the  Republicans  for  United 
States  senator.  He  was  not  willing  to  have  it 
understood  that  he  was  merely  their  first  choice, 
or  their  last  choice,  but  their  only  choice.  The 
Black  Republican  party  had  nobody  else. 
Browning  was  nowhere;  Governor  Bissell  was 
of  no  account;  Archie  Williams  was  not  to  be 
taken  into  consideration;  John  Wentworth  was 
not  worth  mentioning;  John  M.  Palmer  was 
degraded;  and  their  party  presented  the  extra 
ordinary  spectacle  of  having  but  one — the  first, 


1858]         Speech  at  Jonesboro  17 

the  last,  and  only  choice  for  the  Senate.  Sup 
pose  that  Lincoln  should  die,  what  a  horrible 
condition  the  Republican  party  would  be  in! 
They  would  have  nobody  left.  They  have  no 
other  choice,  and  it  was  necessary  for  them  to 
put  themselves  before  the  world  in  this  ludi 
crous,  ridiculous  attitude  of  having  no  other 
choice  in  order  to  quiet  Lincoln's  suspicions, 
and  assure  him  that  he  was  not  to  be  cheated 
by  Lovejoy,  and  the  trickery  by  which  Trum- 
bull  out-generaled  him.  Well,  gentlemen,  I 
think  they  will  have  a  nice  time  of  it  before 
they  get  through.  I  do  not  intend  to  give  them 
any  chance  to  cheat  Lincoln  at  all  this  time.  I 
intend  to  relieve  him  of  all  anxiety  upon  that 
subject,  and  spare  them  the  mortification  of 
more  exposures  of  contracts  violated,  and  the 
pledged  honor  of  rogues  forfeited. 

But  I  wish  to  invite  your  attention  to  the 
chief  points  at  issue  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and 
myself  in  this  discussion.  Mr.  Lincoln,  know 
ing  that  he  was  to  be  the  candidate  of  his  party 
on  account  of  the  arrangement  of  which  I  have 
already  spoken,  knowing  that  he  was  to  receive 
the  nomination  of  the  convention  for  the  United 
States  Senate,  had  his  speech,  accepting  that 
nomination,  all  written  and  committed  to  mem 
ory,  ready  to  be  delivered  the  moment  the  nomi 
nation  was  announced.  Accordingly  when  it 


1 8  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Sept.  15 

was  made  he  was  in  readiness  and  delivered  his 
speech,  a  portion  of  which  I  will  read  in  order 
that  I  may  state  his  political  principles  fairly, 
by  repeating  them  in  his  own  language : 

We  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy 
was  instituted  for  the  avowed  object,  and  with  the 
confident  promise  of  putting  an  end  to  slavery  agita 
tion;  under  the  operation  of  that  policy,  that  agita 
tion  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly  aug 
mented.  I  believe  it  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall 
have  been  reached  and  passed.  "  A  house  divided 
against  itself  cannot  stand."  I  believe  this  govern 
ment  cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half 
free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved  —  I 
do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall  —  but  I  do  expect  it 
will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing 
or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will 
arrest  the  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public 
mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of 
ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push  it  for 
ward  until  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the 
States,  North  as  well  as  South. 

There  you  have  Mr.  Lincoln's  first  and  main 
proposition,  upon  which  he  bases  his  claims, 
stated  in  his  own  language.  He  tells  you  that 
this  republic  cannot  endure  permanently  di 
vided  into  slave  and  free  States,  as  our  fathers 
made  it.  He  says  that  they  must  all  become 
free  or  all  become  slave,  that  they  must  all  be 


1858]         Speech  at  Jonesboro  19 

one  thing  or  all  be  the  other,  or  this  government 
cannot  last.  Why  can  it  not  last,  if  we  will  exe 
cute  the  government  in  the  same  spirit  and  upon 
the  same  principles  upon  which  it  is  founded? 
Lincoln,  by  his  proposition,  says  to  the  South, 
"If  you  desire  to  maintain  your  institutions  as 
they  are  now,  you  must  not  be  satisfied  with 
minding  your  own  business,  but  you  must  invade 
Illinois  and  all  the  other  Northern  States,  es 
tablish  slavery  in  them,  and  make  it  universal" ; 
and  in  the  same  language  he  says  to  the  North, 
"You  must  not  be  content  with  regulating  your 
own  affairs,  and  minding  your  own  business,  but 
if  you  desire  to  maintain  your  freedom,  you  must 
invade  the  Southern  States,  abolish  slavery  there 
and  everywhere,  in  order  to  have  the  States  all 
one  thing  or  all  the  other."  I  say  that  this  is 
the  inevitable  and  irresistible  result  of  Mr.  Lin 
coln's  argument,  inviting  a  warfare  between  the 
North  and  the  South,  to  be  carried  on  with  ruth 
less  vengeance,  until  the  one  section  or  the  other 
shall  be  driven  to  the  wall,  and  become  the  vic 
tim  of  the  rapacity  of  the  other.  What  good 
would  follow  such  a  system  of  warfare?  Sup 
pose  the  North  should  succeed  in  conquering 
the  South,  how  much  would  she  be  the  gainer? 
or  suppose  the  South  should  conquer  the  North, 
could  the  Union  be  preserved  in  that  way?  Is 
this  sectional  warfare  to  be  waged  between 


20  Stephen   A.   Douglas     [Sept.  15 

Northern  States  and  Southern  States  until  they 
all  shall  become  uniform  in  their  local  and  do 
mestic  institutions  merely  because  Mr.  Lincoln 
says  that  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot 
stand,  and  pretends  that  this  scriptural  quota 
tion,  this  language  of  our  Lord  and  Master,  is 
applicable  to  the  American  Union  and  the 
American  Constitution?  Washington  and  his 
compeers,  in  the  convention  that  framed  the 
Constitution,  made  this  government  divided  into 
free  and  slave  States.  It  was  composed  then  of 
thirteen  sovereign  and  independent  States,  each 
having  sovereign  authority  over  its  local  and 
domestic  institutions,  and  all  bound  together  by 
the  Federal  Constitution.  Mr.  Lincoln  likens 
that  bond  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  joining 
free  and  slave  States  together,  to  a  house  divided 
against  itself,  and  says  that  it  is  contrary  to  the 
law  of  God  and  cannot  stand.  When  did  he 
learn,  and  by  what  authority  does  he  proclaim, 
that  this  government  is  contrary  to  the  law  of 
God  and  cannot  stand?  It  has  stood  thus  di 
vided  into  free  and  slave  States  from  its  organi 
zation  up  to  this  day. 

During  that  period  we  have  increased  from 
four  millions  to  thirty  millions  of  people;  we 
have  extended  our  territory  from  the  Missis 
sippi  to  the  Pacific  ocean;  we  have  acquired  the 
Floridas  and  Texas,  and  other  territory  suffi- 


1858]         Speech  at    Jonesboro  21 

cient  to  double  our  geographical  extent;  we 
have  increased  in  population,  in  wealth,  and  in 
power  beyond  any  example  on  earth;  we  have 
risen  from  a  weak  and  feeble  power  to  become 
the  terror  and  admiration  of  the  civilized  world; 
and  all  this  has  been  done  under  a  Constitution 
which  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  substance,  says  is  in  vio 
lation  of  the  law  of  God,  and  under  a  Union 
divided  into  free  and  slave  States,  which  Mr. 
Lincoln  thinks,  because  of  such  division,  can 
not  stand. 

Surely  Mr.  Lincoln  is  a  wiser  man  than  those 
who  framed  the  government.  Washington  did 
not  believe,  nor  did  his  compatriots,  that  the 
local  laws  and  domestic  institutions  that  were 
well  adapted  to  the  Green  Mountains  of  Ver 
mont  were  suited  to  the  rice  plantations  of 
South  Carolina ;  they  did  not  believe  at  that  day 
that  in  a  republic  so  broad  and  expanded  as  this, 
containing  such  a  variety  of  climate,  soil,  and 
interest,  uniformity  in  the  local  laws  and  domes 
tic  institutions  was  either  desirable  or  possible. 
They  believed  then,  as  our  experience  has 
proved  to  us  now,  that  each  locality,  having 
different  interests,  a  different  climate,  and  dif 
ferent  surroundings,  required  different  local 
laws,  local  policy,  and  local  institutions,  adapted 
to  the  wants  of  that  locality.  Thus  our  govern 
ment  was  formed  on  the  principle  of  diversity 


22  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Sept.  15 

in  the  local  institutions  and  laws,  and  not  on 
that  of  uniformity. 

As  my  time  flies,  I  can  only  glance  at  these 
points  and  not  present  them  as  fully  as  I  would 
wish,  because  I  desire  to  bring  all  the  points  in 
controversy  between  the  two  parties  before  you 
in  order  to  have  Mr.  Lincoln's  reply.  He 
makes  war  on  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  in  the  case  known  as  the  Dred  Scott  case. 
I  wish  to  say  to  you,  fellow-citizens,  that  I  have 
no  war  to  make  on  that  decision,  or  any  other 
ever  rendered  by  the  Supreme  Court.  I  am 
content  to  take  that  decision  as  it  stands  deliv 
ered  by  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  on  earth, 
a  tribunal  established  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  for  that  purpose,  and  hence  that 
decision  becomes  the  law  of  the  land,  binding 
on  you,  on  me,  and  on  every  other  good  citizen, 
whether  we  like  it  or  not.  Hence  I  do  not 
choose  to  go  into  an  argument  to  prove,  before 
this  audience,  whether  or  not  Chief  Justice 
Taney  understood  the  law  better  than  Abraham 
Lincoln. 

Mr.  Lincoln  objects  to  that  decision,  first  and 
mainly  because  it  deprives  the  negro  of  the 
rights  of  citizenship.  I  am  as  much  opposed 
to  his  reason  for  that  objection  as  I  am  to  the 
objection  itself.  I  hold  that  a  negro  is  not  and 
never  ought  to  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 


1858]         Speech  at   Jonesboro  23 

I  hold  that  this  government  was  made  on  the 
white  basis,  by  white  men  for  the  benefit  of 
white  men  and  their  posterity  forever,  and 
should  be  administered  by  white  men,  and  none 
others.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  Almighty 
made  the  negro  capable  of  self-government.  I 
am  aware  that  all  the  Abolition  lecturers  that 
you  find  traveling  about  through  the  country, 
are  in  the  habit  of  reading  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  to  prove  that  all  men  were  created 
equal  and  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  cer 
tain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  life, 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  Mr.  Lin 
coln  is  very  much  in  the  habit  of  following  in 
the  track  of  Lovejoy  in  this  particular,  by  read 
ing  that  part  of  the  Declaration  of  Independ 
ence  to  prove  that  the  negro  was  endowed  by 
the  Almighty  with  the  inalienable  right  of 
equality  with  white  men.  Now,  I  say  to  you, 
my  fellow-citizens,  that  in  my  opinion  the  sign 
ers  of  the  Declaration  had  no  reference  to  the 
negro  whatever,  when  they  declared  all  men  to 
be  created  equal.  They  desired  to  express  by 
that  phrase  white  men,  men  of  European  birth 
and  European  descent,  and  had  no  reference 
either  to  the  negro,  the  savage  Indians,  the  Fee- 
jee,  the  Malay,  or  any  other  inferior  and  de 
graded  race,  when  they  spoke  of  the  equality  of 
men.  One  great  evidence  that  such  was  their 


24  Stephen   A.   Douglas     [Sept.  15 

understanding,  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
at  that  time  every  one  of  the  thirteen  colonies 
was  a  slaveholding  colony,  every  signer  of  the 
Declaration  represented  a  slaveholding  constit 
uency,  and  we  know  that  no  one  of  them  emanci 
pated  his  slaves,  much  less  offered  citizenship 
to  them,  when  they  signed  the  Declaration;  and 
yet,  if  they  intended  to  declare  that  the  negro 
was  the  equal  of  the  white  man,  and  entitled  by 
divine  right  to  an  equality  with  him,  they  were 
bound,  as  honest  men,  that  day  and  hour  to  have 
put  their  negroes  on  an  equality  with  them 
selves.  Instead  of  doing  so,  with  uplifted  eyes 
to  heaven  they  implored  the  divine  blessing 
upon  them,  during  the  seven  years'  bloody  war 
they  had  to  fight  to  maintain  that  Declaration, 
never  dreaming  that  they  were  violating  divine 
law  by  still  holding  the  negroes  in  bondage  and 
depriving  them  of  equality. 

My  friends,  I  am  in  favor  of  preserving  this 
government  as  our  fathers  made  it.  It  does  not 
follow  by  any  means  that  because  a  negro  is  not 
your  equal  or  mine,  that  hence  he  must  neces 
sarily  be  a  slave.  On  the  contrary,  it  does  fol 
low  that  we  ought  to  extend  to  the  negro  every 
right,  every  privilege,  every  immunity  which  he 
is  capable  of  enjoying,  consistent  with  the  good 
of  society.  When  you  ask  rne  °what  hese  rights 
are,  what  their  nature  and  extent  is,  I  tell  you 


1858]          Speech  at   Jonesboro  25 

that  that  is  a  question  which  each  State  of  this 
Union  must  decide  for  itself.  Illinois  has  al 
ready  decided  the  question.  We  have  decided 
that  the  negrd  must  not  be  a  slave  within  our 
limits;  but  we  have  also  decided  that  the  negro 
shall  not  be  a  citizen  within  our  limits;  that  he 
shall  not  vote,  hold  office,  or  exercise  any  politi 
cal  rights.  I  maintain  that  Illinois,  as  a  sover 
eign  State,  has  a  right  thus  to  fix  her  policy  with 
reference  to  the  relation  between  the  white  man 
.•and  the  negro;  but  while  we  had  that  right  to 
decide  the  question  for  ourselves,  we  must  recog 
nize  the  same  right  in  Kentucky  and  in  every 
other  State  to  make  the  same  decision,  or  a  dif 
ferent  one.  Having  decided  our  own  policy 
with  reference  to  the  black  race,  we  must  leave 
Kentucky  and  Missouri  and  every  other  State 
perfectly  free  to  make  just  such  a  decision  as 
they  see  proper  on  that  question. 

Kentucky  has  decided  that  question  for  her 
self.  She  has  said  that  within  her  limits  a  negro 
shall  not  exercise  any  political  rights,  and  she 
has  also  said  that  a  portion  of  the  negroes  under 
the  laws  of  that  State  shall  be  slaves.  She  had 
as  much  right  to  adopt  that  as  her  policy  as  we 
had  to  adopt  the  contrary  for  our  policy.  New 
York  has  decided  that  in  that  State  a  negro  may 
vote  if  he  has  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars' 
worth  of  property,  and  if  he  owns  that  much 


26  Stephen  A.   Douglas     [Sept.  15 

he  may  vote  upon  an  equality  with  the  white 
man.  I,  for  one,  am  utterly  opposed  to  negro 
suffrage  anywhere  and  under  any  circumstances; 
yet,  inasmuch  as  the  Supreme  Court  has  de 
cided  in  the  celebrated  Dred  Scott  case  that  a 
State  has  a  right  to  confer  the  privilege  of  vot 
ing  upon  free  negroes,  I  am  not  going  to  make 
war  upon  New  York  because  she  has  adopted 
a  policy  repugnant  to  my  feelings.  But  New 
York  must  mind  her  own  business,  and  keep  her 
negro  suffrage  to  herself,  and  not  attempt  to 
force  it  upon  us. 

In  the  State  of  Maine  they  have  decided  that 
a  negro  may  vote  and  hold  office  on  an  equality 
with  a  white  man.  I  had  occasion  to  say  to 
the  senators  from  Maine,  in  a  discussion  last 
session,  that  if  they  thought  that  the  white  peo 
ple  within  the  limits  of  their  State  were  no  bet 
ter  than  negroes,  I  would  not  quarrel  with  them 
for  it,  but  they  must  not  say  that  my  white  con 
stituents  of  Illinois  were  no  better  than  negroes, 
or  we  would  be  sure  to  quarrel. 

The  Dred  Scott  decision  covers  the  whole 
question,  and  declares  that  each  State  has  the 
right  to  settle  this  question  of  suffrage  for  itself, 
and  all  questions  as  to  the  relations  between  the 
white  man  and  the  negro.  Judge  Taney  ex 
pressly  lays  down  the  doctrine.  I  receive  it  as 
law,  and  I  say  that  while  those  States  are  adopt- 


1858]         Speech  at  Jonesboro  27 

ing  regulations  on  that  subject  disgusting  and 
abhorrent,  according  to  my  views,  I  will  not 
make  war  on  them  if  they  will  mind  their  own 
business  and  let  us  alone. 

I  now  come  back  to  the  question,  why  can 
not  this  Union  exist  forever  divided  into  free 
and  slave  States,  as  our  fathers  made  it?  It  can 
thus  exist  if  each  State  will  carry  out  the  prin 
ciples  upon  which  our  institutions  were  founded 
— to  wit,  the  right  of  each  State  to  do  as  it 
pleases,  without  meddling  with  its  neighbors. 
Just  act  upon  that  great  principle,  and  this 
Union  will  not  only  live  forever,  but  it  will  ex 
tend  and  expand  until  it  covers  the  whole  con 
tinent,  and  makes  this  confederacy  one  grand, 
ocean-bound  republic.  We  must  bear  in  mind 
that  we  are  yet  a  young  nation,  growing  with  a 
rapidity  unequaled  in  the  history  of  the  world, 
that  our  national  increase  is  great,  and  that  the 
emigration  from  the  Old  World  is  increasing, 
requiring  us  to  expand  and  acquire  new  terri 
tory  from  time  to  time,  in  order  to  give  our  peo 
ple  land  to  live  upon. 

If  we  live  up  to  the  principle  of  State  rights 
and  State  sovereignty,  each  State  regulating  its 
own  affairs  and  minding  its  own  business,  we 
can  go  on  and  extend  indefinitely,  just  as  fast 
and  as  far  as  we  need  the  territory.  The  time 
may  come,  indeed  has  now  come,  when  our  in- 


28  Stephen  A.   Douglas     [Sept.  15 

terests  would  be  advanced  by  the  acquisition  of 
the  island  of  Cuba.  When  we  get  Cuba  we 
must  take  it  as  we  find  it,  leaving  the  people  to 
decide  the  question  of  slavery  for  themselves, 
without  interference  on  the  part  of  the  Federal 
Government,  or  of  any  State  of  this  Union.  So 
when  it  becomes  necessary  to  acquire  any  por 
tion  of  Mexico  or  Canada,  or  of  this  continent 
or  the  adjoining  islands,  we  must  take  them  as 
we  find  them,  leaving  the  people  free  to  do  as 
they  please — to  have  slavery  or  not,  as  they 
choose.  I  never  have  inquired,  and  never  will 
inquire,  whether  a  new  State  applying  for  ad 
mission  has  slavery  or  not  for  one  of  her  institu 
tions.  If  the  constitution  that  is  presented  be 
the  act  and  deed  of  the  people,  and  embodies 
their  will,  and  they  have  the  requisite  popula 
tion,  I  will  admit  them  with  slavery  or  without 
it,  just  as  that  people  shall  determine.  My  ob 
jection  to  the  Lecompton  constitution  did  not 
consist  in  the  fact  that  it  made  Kansas  a  slave 
State.  I  would  have  been  as  much  opposed  to 
its  admission  under  such  a  constitution  as  a  free 
State  as  I  was  opposed  to  its  admission  under 
it  as  a  slave  State.  I  hold  that  that  was  a  ques 
tion  which  that  people  had  a  right  to  decide  for 
themselves,  and  that  no  power  on  earth  ought 
to  have  interfered  with  that  decision.  In  my 
opinion,  the  Lecompton  constitution  was  not  the 


1858]         Speech  at  Jonesboro  29 

act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  did 
not  embody  their  will,  and  the  recent  election 
in  that  Territory,  at  which  it  was  voted  down 
by  nearly  ten  to  one,  shows  conclusively  that  I 
was  right  in  saying,  when  the  constitution  was 
presented,  that  it  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the 
people,  and  did  not  embody  their  will. 

If  we  wish  to  preserve  our  institutions  in  their 
purity  and  transmit  them  unimpaired  to  our 
latest  posterity,  we  must  preserve  with  religious 
good  faith  that  great  principle  of  self-govern 
ment  which  guarantees  to  each  and  every  State, 
old  and  new,  the  right  to  make  just  such  con 
stitutions  as  they  desire,  and  come  into  the 
Union  with  their  own  constitution,  and  not  one 
palmed  upon  them.  Whenever  you  sanction 
the  doctrine  that  Congress  may  crowd  a  consti 
tution  down  the  throats  of  an  unwilling  people, 
against  their  consent,  you  will  subvert  the  great 
fundamental  principle  upon  which  all  our  free 
institutions  rest.  In  the  future  I  have  no  fear 
that  the  attempt  will  ever  be  made.  President 
Buchanan  declared  in  his  annual  message,  that 
hereafter  the  rule  adopted  in  the  Minnesota 
case,  requiring  a  constitution  to  be  submitted  to 
the  people,  should  be  followed  in  all  future 
cases,  and  if  he  stands  by  that  recommendation 
there  will  be  no  division  in  the  Democratic 
party  on  that  principle  in  the  future.  Hence 


30  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Sept.  15 

the  great  mission  of  the  Democracy  is  to  unite 
the  fraternal  feeling  of  the  whole  country,  re 
store  peace  and  quiet  by  teaching  each  State  to 
mind  its  own  business  and  regulate  its  own  do 
mestic  affairs,  and  all  to  unite  in  carrying  out 
the  Constitution  as  our  fathers  made  it,  and  thus 
to  preserve  the  Union  and  render  it  perpetual 
in  all  time  to  come.  Why  should  we  not  act 
as  our  fathers  who  made  the  government? 
There  was  no  sectional  strife  in  Washington's 
army.  They  were  all  brethren  of  a  common 
confederacy;  they  fought  under  a  common  flag 
that  they  might  bestow  upon  their  posterity  a 
common  destiny,  and  to  this  end  they  poured  out 
their  blood  in  common  streams,  and  shared,  in 
some  instances,  a  common  grave. 


1858]          Reply   at   Jonesboro  31 


Mr.  Lincoln's  Reply  in  the  Jonesboro  Joint 
Debate. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN :  There 
is  very  much  in  the  principles  that 
Judge  Douglas  has  here  enunciated  that 
I  most  cordially  approve,  and  over  which  I 
shall  have  no  controversy  with  him.  In  so  far 
as  he  has  insisted  that  all  the  States  have  the 
right  to  do  exactly  as  they  please  about  all  their 
domestic  relations,  including  that  of  slavery,  I 
agree  entirely  with  him.  He  places  me  wrong 
in  spite  of  all  I  can  tell  him,  though  I  repeat 
it  again  and  again,  insisting  that  I  have  made 
no  difference  with  him  upon  this  subject.  I 
have  made  a  great  many  speeches,  some  of 
which  have  been  printed,  and  it  will  be  utterly 
impossible  for  him  to  find  anything  that  I  have 
ever  put  in  print  contrary  to  what  I  now  say 
upon  this  subject.  I  hold  myself  under  consti 
tutional  obligations  to  allow  the  people  in  all 
the  States,  without  interference,  direct  or  indi 
rect,  to  do  exactly  as  they  please,  and  I  deny 
that  I  have  any  inclination  to  interfere  with 
them,  even  if  there  were  no  such  constitutional 
obligation.  I  can  only  say  again  that  I  am 


32  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  15 

placed  improperly — altogether  improperly,  in 
spite  of  all  I  can  say — when  it  is  insisted  that  I 
entertain  any  other  view  or  purpose  in  regard 
to  that  matter. 

While  I  am  upon  this  subject,  I  will  make 
some  answers  briefly  to  certain  propositions  that 
Judge  Douglas  has  put.  He  says,  "Why  can't 
this  Union  endure  permanently,  half  slave  and 
half  free?"  I  have  said  that  I  supposed  it  could 
not,  and  I  will  try,  before  this  new  audience,  to 
give  briefly  some  of  the  reasons  for  entertaining 
that  opinion.  Another  form  of  his  question  is, 
"Why  can't  we  let  it  stand  as  our  fathers  placed 
it?"  That  is  the  exact  difficulty  between  us. 
I  say  that  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  have 
changed  it  from  the  position  in  which  our  fath 
ers  originally  placed  it.  I  say,  in  the  way  our 
fathers  originally  left  the  slavery  question,  the 
institution  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinc 
tion,  and  the  public  mind  rested  in  the  belief 
that  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction. 
I  say  when  this  government  was  first  established, 
it  was  the  policy  of  its  founders  to  prohibit  the 
spread  of  slavery  into  the  new  Territories  of  the 
United  States,  where  it  had  not  existed.  But 
Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  have  broken  up 
that  policy,  and  placed  it  upon  a  new  basis  by 
which  it  is  to  become  national  and  perpetual. 
All  I  have  asked  or  desired  anywhere  is  that  it 


1858]  Reply  at   Jonesboro  33 

should  be  placed  back  again  upon  the  basis  that 
the  fathers  of  our  government  originally  placed 
it  upon.  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  would  become 
extinct,  for  all  time  to  come,  if  we  but  readopted 
the  policy  of  the  fathers  by  restricting  it  to  the 
limits  it  has  already  covered — restricting  it  from 
the  new  Territories. 

I  do  not  wish  to  dwell  at  great  length  on  this 
branch  of  the  subject  at  this  time,  but  allow  me 
to  repeat  one  thing  that  I  have  stated  before. 
Brooks,  the  man  who  assaulted  Senator  Sumner 
on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  and  who  was  compli 
mented  with  dinners,  and  silver  pitchers,  and 
gold-headed  canes,  and  a  good  many  other  things 
for  that  feat,  in  one  of  his  speeches  declared 
that  when  this  government  was  originally  estab 
lished,  nobody  expected  that  the  institution  of 
slavery  would  last  until  this  day.  That  was  but 
the  opinion  of  one  man,  but  it  was  such  an  opin 
ion  as  we  can  never  get  from  Judge  Douglas, 
or  anybody  in  favor  of  slavery  in  the  North  at 
all.  You  can  sometimes  get  it  from  a  Southern 
man.  He  said  at  the  same  time  that  the  fram- 
ers  of  our  government  did  not  have  the  knowl 
edge  that  experience  has  taught  us — that  ex 
perience  and  the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin 
have  taught  us  that  the  perpetuation  of  slavery 
is  a  necessity.  He  insisted,  therefore,  upon  its 
being  changed  from  the  basis  upon  which  the 


34  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  15 

fathers  of  the  government  left  it  to  the  basis  of 
its  perpetuation  and  nationalization. 

I  insist  that  this  is  the  difference  between 
Judge  Douglas  and  myself — that  Judge  Doug 
las  is  helping  that  change  along.  I  insist  upon 
this  government  being  placed  where  our  fath 
ers  originally  placed  it. 

I  remember  Judge  Douglas  once  said  that  he 
saw  the  evidences  on  the  statute-books  of  Con 
gress  of  a  policy  in  the  origin  of  government 
to  divide  slavery  and  freedom  by  a  geographi 
cal  line — that  he  saw  an  indisposition  to  main 
tain  that  policy,  and  therefore  he  set  about 
studying  up  a  way  to  settle  the  institution  on 
the  right  basis — the  basis  which  he  thought  it 
ought  to  have  been  placed  upon  at  first;  and  in 
that  speech  he  confesses  that  he  seeks  to  place  it, 
not  upon  the  basis  that  the  fathers  placed  it 
upon,  but  upon  one  gotten  up  on  "original  prin 
ciples."  When  he  asks  me  why  we  cannot  get 
along  with  it  in  the  attitude  where  our  fathers 
placed  it,  he  had  better  clear  up  the  evidences 
that  he  has  himself  changed  it  from  that  basis ; 
that  he  has  himself  been  chiefly  instrumental  in 
changing  the  policy  of  the  fathers.  Any  one 
who  will  read  his  speech  of  the  22d  of  last  March 
will  see  that  he  there  makes  an  open  confession, 
showing  that  he  set  about  fixing  the  institution 
upon  an  altogether  different  set  of  principles. 


1 858]          Reply  at   Jonesboro  35 

I  think  I  have  fully  answered  him  when  he  asks 
me  why  we  cannot  let  it  alone  upon  the  basis 
where  our  fathers  left  it,  by  showing  that  he  has 
himself  changed  the  whole  policy  of  the  gov 
ernment  in  that  regard. 

Now,  fellow-citizens,  in  regard  to  this  matter 
about  a  contract  that  was  made  between  Judge 
Trumbull  and  myself,  and  all  that  long  portion 
of  Judge  Douglas's  speech  on  this  subject,  I  wish 
simply  to  say  what  I  have  said  to  him  before, 
that  he  cannot  know  whether  it  is  true  or  not, 
and  I  do  know  that  there  is  not  a  word  of  truth 
in  it.  And  I  have  told  him  so  before.  I  don't 
want  any  harsh  language  indulged  in,  but  I  do 
not  know  how  to  deal  with  this  persistent  in 
sisting  on  a  story  that  I  know  to  be  utterly  with 
out  truth.  It  used  to  be  a  fashion  amongst  men 
that  when  a  charge  was  made,  some  sort  of  proof 
was  brought  forward  to  establish  it,  and  if  no 
proof  was  found  to  exist,  the  charge  was  drop 
ped.  I  don't  know  how  to  meet  this  kind  of  an 
argument.  I  don't  want  to  have  a  fight  with 
Judge  Douglas,  and  I  have  no  way  of  making  an 
argument  up  into  the  consistency  of  a  corn-cob 
and  stopping  his  mouth  with  it.  All  I  can  do  is, 
good-humoredly,  to  say  that  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end  of  all  that  story  about  a  bargain  be 
tween  Judge  Trumbull  and  myself,  there  is  not 
a  word  of  truth  in  it.  I  can  only  ask  him  to 


36  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  15 

show  some  sort  of  evidence  of  the  truth  of  his 
story.  He  brings  forward  here  and  reads  from 
what  he  contends  is  a  speech  by  James  H. 
Matheny,  charging  such  a  bargain  between 
Trumbull  and  myself.  My  own  opinion  is  that 
Matheny  did  do  some  such  immoral  thing  as  to 
tell  a  story  that  he  knew  nothing  about.  I  be 
lieve  he  did.  I  contradicted  it  instantly,  and  it 
has  been  contradicted  by  Judge  Trumbull,  while 
nobody  has  produced  any  proof,  because  there 
is  none.  Now,  whether  the  speech  which  the 
judge  brings  forward  here  is  really  the  one 
Matheny  made,  I  do  not  know,  and  I  hope  the 
judge  will  pardon  me  for  doubting  the  genu 
ineness  of  this  document,  since  his  production 
of  those  Springfield  resolutions  at  Ottawa.  I 
do  not  wish  to  dwell  at  any  great  length  upon 
this  matter.  I  can  say  nothing  when  a  long 
story  like  this  is  told,  except  that  it  is  not  true, 
and  demand  that  he  who  insists  upon  it  shall 
produce  some  proof.  That  is  all  any  man  can 
rdo,  and  I  leave  it  in  that  way,  for  I  know  of  no 
other  way  of  dealing  with  it. 

The  judge  has  gone  over  a  long  account  of 
the  Old  Whig  and  Democratic  parties,  and  it 
connects  itself  with  this  charge  against  Trum 
bull  and  myself.  He  says  that  they  agreed  upon 
a  compromise  in  regard  to  the  slavery  question 
in  1850;  that  in  a  national  Democratic  conven- 


1858]          Reply  at  Jonesboro  37 

tion  resolutions  were  passed  to  abide  by  that 
compromise  as  a  finality  upon  the  slavery  ques 
tion.  He  also  says  that  the  Whig  party  in  na 
tional  convention  agreed  to  abide  by  and  regard 
as  a  finality  the  compromise  of  1850.  I  under 
stand  the  judge  to  be  altogether  right  about  that; 
I  understand  that  part  of  the  history  of  the  coun 
try  as  stated  by  him  to  be  correct.  I  recollect 
that  I,  as  a  member  of  that  party,  acquiesced  in 
that  compromise.  I  recollect  in  the  presiden 
tial  election  which  followed,  when  we  had  Gen 
eral  Scott  up  for  the  presidency,  Judge  Douglas 
was  around  berating  us  Whigs  as  Abolitionists, 
precisely  as  he  does  to-day — not  a  bit  of  differ 
ence.  I  have  often  heard  him.  We  could  do 
nothing  when  the  Old  Whig  party  was  alive 
that  was  not  Abolitionism,  but  it  has  got  an  ex 
tremely  good  name  since  it  has  passed  away. 

When  that  compromise  was  made,  it  did  not 
repeal  the  old  Missouri  Compromise.  It  left 
a  region  of  United  States  territory  half  as  large 
as  the  present  territory  of  the  United  States, 
north  of  the  line  of  36  degrees  30  minutes,  in 
which  slavery  was  prohibited  by  act  of  Con 
gress.  This  compromise  did  not  repeal  that 
one.  It  did  not  affect  or  propose  to  repeal  it. 
But  at  last  it  became  Judge  Douglas's  duty,  as 
he  thought  (and  I  find  no  fault  with  him),  as 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  to 


38  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  15 

bring  in  a  bill  for  the  organization  of  a  territor 
ial  government — first  of  one,  then  of  two  Ter 
ritories  north  of  that  line.  When  he  did  so  it 
ended  in  his  inserting  a  provision  substantially 
repealing  the  Missouri  Compromise.  That  was 
because  the  compromise  of  1850  had  not  re 
pealed  it.  And  now  I  ask  why  he  could  not 
have  left  that  compromise  alone?  We  were 
quiet  from  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question. 
We  were  making  no  fuss  about  it.  All  had  ac 
quiesced  in  the  compromise  measures  of  1850. 
We  never  had  been  seriously  disturbed  by  any 
Abolition  agitation  before  that  period.  When 
he  came  to  form  governments  for  the  Territories 
north  of  the  line  of  36  degrees  30  minutes,  why 
could  he  not  have  let  that  matter  stand  as  it  was 
standing?  Was  it  necessary  to  the  organization 
of  a  Territory?  Not  at  all.  Iowa  lay  north 
of  the  line  and  had  been  organized  as  a  Terri 
tory,  and  came  into  the  Union  as  a  State  without 
disturbing  that  compromise.  There  was  no  sort 
of  necessity  for  destroying  it  to  organize  these 
Territories.  But,  gentlemen,  it  would  take  up 
all  my  time  to  meet  all  the  little  quibbling  argu 
ments  of  Judge  Douglas  to  show  that  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise  was  repealed  by  the  compro 
mise  of  1850.  My  own  opinion  is  that  a  careful 
investigation  of  all  the  arguments  to  sustain  the 
position  that  that  compromise  was  virtually  re- 


1858]          Reply  at   Jonesboro  39 

pealed  by  the  compromise  of  1850  would  show 
that  they  are  the  merest  fallacies.  I  have  the 
report  that  Judge  Douglas  first  brought  into 
Congress  at  the  time  of  the  introduction  of  the 
Nebraska  bill,  which  in  its  original  form  did 
not  repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  he 
there  expressly  stated  that  he  had  forborne  to 
do  so  because  it  had  not  been  done  by  the  com 
promise  of  1850.  I  close  this  part  of  the  discus 
sion  on  my  part  by  asking  him  the  question 
again,  "Why,  when  we  had  peace  under  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  could  you  not  have  let 
it  alone?" 

In  complaining  of  what  I  said  in  my  speech 
at  Springfield,  in  which  he  says  I  accepted  my 
nomination  for  the  senatorship  (where,  by  the 
way,  he  is  at  fault,  for  if  he  will  examine  it, 
he  will  find  no  acceptance  in  it) ,  he  again  quotes 
that  portion  in  which  I  said  that  "a  house  di 
vided  against  itself  cannot  stand."  Let  me  say 
a  word  in  regard  to  that  matter. 

He  tries  to  persuade  us  that  there  must  be  a 
variety  in  the  different  institutions  of  the  States 
of  the  Union;  that  that  variety  necessarily  pro 
ceeds  from  the  variety  of  soil,  climate,  of  the 
face  of  the  country  and  the  difference  in  the 
natural  features  of  the  States.  I  agree  to  all 
that.  Have  these  very  matters  ever  produced 
any  difficulty  amongst  us?  Not  at  all.  Have 


40  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  15 

we  ever  had  any  quarrel  over  the  fact  that  they 
have  laws  in  Louisiana  designed  to  regulate  the 
commerce  that  springs  from  the  production  of 
sugar?  or  because  we  have  a  different  class  rela 
tive  to  the  production  of  flour  in  this  State? 
Have  they  produced  any  differences?  Not  at 
all.  They  are  the  very  cements  of  this  Union. 
They  don't  make  the  house  a  house  divided 
against  itself.  They  are  the  props  that  hold  up 
the  house  and  sustain  the  Union. 

But  has  it  been  so  with  this  element  of  slav 
ery?  Have  we  not  always  had  quarrels  and  dif 
ficulties  over  it?  And  when  will  we  cease  to 
have  quarrels  over  it?  Like  causes  produce  like 
effects.  It  is  worth  while  to  observe  that  we 
have  generally  had  comparative  peace  upon  the 
slavery  question,  and  that  there  has  been  no 
cause  for  alarm  until  it  was  excited  by  the  effort 
to  spread  it  into  new  territory.  Whenever  it 
has  been  limited  to  its  present  bounds,  and  there 
has  been  no  effort  to  spread  it,  there  has  been 
peace.  All  the  trouble  and  convulsion  has  pro 
ceeded  from  efforts  to  spread  it  over  more  ter 
ritory.  It  was  thus  at  the  date  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise.  It  was  so  again  with  the  annex 
ation  of  Texas;  so  with  the  territory  acquired 
by  the  Mexican  war;  and  it  is  so  now.  When 
ever  there  has  been  an  effort  to  spread  it  there 
has  been  agitation  and  resistance.  Now,  I  ap- 


1858]  Reply  at    Jonesboro  41 

peal  to  this  audience  (very  few  of  whom  are  my 
political  friends),  as  national  men,  whether  we 
have  reason  to  expect  that  the  agitation  in  re 
gard  to  this  subject  will  cease  while  the  causes 
that  tend  to  reproduce  agitation  are  actively  at 
work?  Will  not  the  same  cause  that  produced 
agitation  in  1820,  when  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise  was  formed — that  which  produced  the  agi 
tation  upon  the  annexation  of  Texas,  and  at 
other  times, — work  out  the  same  results  always? 
Do  you  think  that  the  nature  of  man  will  be 
changed — that  the  same  causes  that  produced 
agitation  at  one  time  will  not  have  the  same 
effect  at  another? 

This  has  been  the  result  so  far  as  my  observa 
tion  of  the  slavery  question  and  my  reading  in 
history  extend.  What  right  have  we  then  to 
hope  that  the  trouble  will  cease,  that  the  agita 
tion  will  come  to  an  end ;  until  it  shall  either  be 
placed  back  where  it  originally  stood,  and  where 
the  fathers  originally  placed  it,  or,  on  the  other 
hand,  until  it  shall  entirely  master  all  opposi 
tion?  This  is  the  view  I  entertain,  and  this  is 
the  reason  why  I  entertain  it,  as  Judge  Douglas 
has  read  from  my  Springfield  speech. 

Now,  my  friends,  there  is  one  other  thing  that 
I  feel  under  some  sort  of  obligation  to  mention. 
Judge  Douglas  has  here  to-day — in  a  very 
rambling  way,  I  was  about  saying — spoken  of 


42  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  15 

the  platforms  for  which  he  seeks  to  hold  me  re 
sponsible.  He  says,  "Why  can't  you  come  out 
and  make  an  open  avowal  of  principles  in  all 
places  alike?"  and  he  reads  from  an  advertise 
ment  that  he  says  was  used  to  notify  the  people 
of  a  speech  to  be  made  by  Judge  Trumbull  at 
Waterloo.  In  commenting  on  it  he  desires 
to  know  whether  we  cannot  speak  frankly  and 
manfully  as  he  and  his  friends  do!  How,  I 
ask,  do  his  friends  speak  out  their  own  senti 
ments?  A  convention  of  his  party  in  this  State 
met  on  the  aist  of  April,  at  Springfield,  and 
passed  a  set  of  resolutions  which  they  proclaim 
to  the  country  as  their  platform.  This  does  con 
stitute  their  platform,  and  it  is  because  Judge 
Douglas  claims  it  is  his  platform — that  these 
are  his  principles  and  purposes — that  he  has  a 
right  to  declare  that  he  speaks  his  sentiments 
"frankly  and  manfully."  On  the  9th  of  June, 
Colonel  John  Dougherty,  Governor  Reynolds, 
and  others,  calling  themselves  National  Demo 
crats,  met  in  Springfield,  and  adopted  a  set  of 
resolutions  which  are  as  easily  understood,  as 
plain  and  as  definite  in  stating  to  the  country 
and  to  the  world  what  they  believe  in  and  would 
stand  upon,  as  Juge  Douglas's  platform.  Now, 
what  is  the  reason  that  Judge  Douglas  is  not 
willing  that  Colonel  Dougherty  and  Governor 
Reynolds  should  stand  upon  their  own  written 


1858]          Reply  at    Jonesboro  43 

and  printed  platforms  as  well  as  he  upon  his? 
Why  must  he  look  farther  than  their  platform 
when  he  claims  himself  to  stand  by  his  plat 
form? 

Again,  in  reference  to  ovr  platform:  On  the 
1 6th  of  June  the  Republicans  had  their  conven 
tion  and  published  their  platform,  which  is  as 
clear  and  distinct  as  Judge  Douglas's.  In  it 
they  spoke  their  principles  as  plainly  and  as 
definitely  to  the  world.  What  is  the  reason  that 
Judge  Douglas  is  not  willing  that  I  should  stand 
upon  that  platform?  Why  must  he  go  around 
hunting  for  some  one  who  is  supporting  me,  or 
has  supported  me  at  some  time  in  his  life,  and 
who  has  said  something  at  some  time  contrary 
to  that  platform?  Does  the  judge  regard  that 
rule  as  a  good  one?  If  it  turn  out  that  the  rule 
is  a  good  one  for  me, — that  I  am  responsible  for 
any  and  every  opinion  that  any  man  has  ex 
pressed  who  is  my  friend, — then  it  is  a  good 
rule  for  him.  I  ask,  is  it  not  as  good  a  rule  for 
him  as  it  is  for  me?  In  my  opinion,  it  is  not 
a  good  rule  for  either  of  us.  Do  you  think  dif 
ferently,  judge? 

Mr.  Douglas:     I  do  not. 

Mr.  Lincoln:  Judge  Douglas  says  he  does 
not  think  differently.  I  am  glad  of  it.  Then 
can  he  tell  me  why  he  is  looking  up  resolutions 
of  five  or  six  years  ago,  and  insisting  that  they 


44  Abraham   Lincoln         [Sept.  15 

were  my  platform,  notwithstanding  my  protest 
that  they  are  not,  and  never  were,  my  platform, 
and  my  pointing  out  the  platform  of  the  State 
convention  which  he  delights  to  say  nominated 
me  for  the  Senate?  I  cannot  see  what  he  means 
by  parading  these  resolutions,  if  it  is  not  to  hold 
me  responsible  for  them  in  some  way.  If  he 
says  to  me  here,  that  he  does  not  hold  the  rule 
to  be  good,  one  way  or  the  other,  I  do  not  com 
prehend  how  he  could  answer  me  more  fully  if 
he  answered  me  at  greater  length.  I  will  there 
fore  put  in  as  my  answer  to  the  resolutions  that 
he  has  hunted  up  against  me  what  I,  as  a  law 
yer,  would  call  a  good  plea  to  a  bad  declaration. 
I  understand  that  it  is  a  maxim  of  law,  that  a 
poor  plea  may  be  a  good  plea  to  a  bad  declara 
tion.  I  think  that  the  opinions  the  judge  brings 
from  those  who  support  me,  yet  differ  from  me, 
are  a  had  declaration  against  me,  but  if  I  can 
bring  the  same  things  against  him,  I  am  putting 
in  a  good  plea  to  that  kind  of  declaration,  and 
now  I  propose  to  try  it. 

At  Freeport  Judge  Douglas  occupied  a  large 
part  of  his  time  in  producing  resolutions  and 
documents  of  various  sorts,  as  I  understood,  to 
make  me  somehow  responsible  for  them;  and  I 
propose  now  doing  a  little  of  the  same  sort  of 
thing  for  him. 

In  1850  a  very  clever  gentleman  by  the  name 


1858]  Reply  at    Jonesboro  45 

of  Thompson  Campbell,  a  personal  friend  of 
Judge  Douglas  and  myself,  a  political  friend 
of  Judge  Douglas  and  opponent  of  mine,  was  a 
candidate  for  Congress  in  the  Galena  district. 
He  was  interrogated  as  to  his  views  on  this  same 
slavery  question.  I  have  here  before  me  the  in 
terrogatories,  and  Campbell's  answers  to  them. 
I  will  read  them: 

Interrogatories. 

1.  Will  you,  if  elected,  vote  for  and  cordially  sup 
port  a  bill  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  Territories  of 
the  United  States? 

2.  Will  you  vote  for  and  support  a  bill  abolishing 
slavery  in  the  district  of  Columbia  ? 

3.  Will  you  oppose  the  admission  of  any  slave 
States  which  may  be  formed  out  of  Texas  or  the 
Territories  ? 

4.  Will  you  vote  for  and  advocate  the  repeal  of 
the  fugitive-slave  law  passed  at  the  recent  session  of 
Congress? 

5.  Will  you  advocate  and  vote  for  the  election  of 
a  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives  who  shall 
be  willing  to  organize  the  committees  of  that  House 
so  as  to  give  the  free  States  their  just  influence  in  the 
business  of  legislation  ? 

6.  What  are  your  views,  not  only  as  to  the  con 
stitutional  right  of  Congress  to  prohibit  the  slave- 
trade  between  the  States,  but  also  as  to  the  expediency 
of  exercising  that  right  immediately? 


46  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  15 

Campbell's  Reply. 

To  the  first  and  second  interrogatories,  I  answer 
unequivocally  in  the  affirmative. 

To  the  third  interrogatory,  I  reply  that  I  am  op 
posed  to  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States  into 
the  Union,  that  may  be  formed  out  of  Texan  or  any 
other  territory. 

To  the  fourth  and  fifth  interrogatories,  I  unhesi 
tatingly  answer  in  the  affirmative, 

To  the  sixth  interrogatory,  I  reply  that  so  long  as 
the  slave  States  continue  to  treat  slaves  as  articles  of 
commerce,  the  Constitution  confers  power  on  Con 
gress  to  pass  laws  regulating  that  peculiar  commerce, 
and  that  the  protection  of  human  rights  imperatively 
demands  the  interposition  of  every  constitutional 
means  to  prevent  this  most  inhuman  and  iniquitous 
traffic.  T.  CAMPBELL. 

I  want  to  say  here  that  Thompson  Campbell 
was  elected  to  Congress  on  that  platform,  as  the 
Democratic  candidate  in  the  Galena  district, 
against  Martin  P.  Sweet. 

Judge  Douglas:  Give  me  the  date  of  the 
letter. 

Mr.  Lincoln:  The  time  Campbell  ran  was 
in  1850.  I  have  not  the  exact  date  here.  It  was 
some  time  in  1850  that  these  interrogatories  were 
put  and  the  answer  given.  Campbell  was  elected 
to  Congress,  and  served  out  his  term.  I  think 
a  second  election  came  up  before  he  served  out 


1858]          Reply  at    Jonesboro  47 

his  term,  and  he  was  not  reelected.  Whether 
defeated  or  not  nominated,  I  do  not  know. 
[Mr.  Campbell  was  nominated  for  reelection 
by  the  Democratic  party,  by  acclamation.]  At 
the  end  of  his  term  his  very  good  friend,  Judge 
Douglas,  got  him  a  high  office  from  President 
Pierce,  and  sent  him  off  to  California.  Is  not 
that  the  fact?  Just  at  the  end  of  his  term  in 
Congress  it  appears  that  our  mutual  friend 
Judge  Douglas  got  our  mutual  friend  Camp 
bell  a  good  office,  and  sent  him  to  California 
upon  it.  And  not  only  so,  but  on  the  2yth  of 
last  month,  when  Judge  Douglas  and  myself 
spoke  at  Freeport  in  joint  discussion,  there  was 
his  same  friend  Campbell,  come  all  the  way 
from  California,  to  help  the  judge  beat  me;  and 
there  was  poor  Martin  P.  Sweet  standing  on  the 
platform,  trying  to  help  poor  me  to  be  elected. 
That  is  true  of  one  of  Judge  Douglas's  friends. 
So  again,  in  that  same  race  of  1850,  there  was 
a  congressional  convention  assembled  at  Joliet, 
and  it  nominated  R.  S.  Molony  for  Congress, 
and  unanimously  adopted  the  following  reso 
lution: 

Resolved,  That  we  are  uncompromisingly  opposed 
to  the  extension  of  slavery;  and  while  we  would  not 
make  such  opposition  a  ground  of  interference  with 
the  interests  of  the  States  where  it  exists,  yet  we  mod 
erately  but  firmly  insist  that  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress 


48  Abraham  Lincoln        [Sept.  15 

to  oppose  its  extension  into  territory  now  free  by  all 
means  compatible  with  the  obligations  of  the  Consti 
tution,  and  with  good  faith  to  our  sister  States;  that 
these  principles  were  recognized  by  the  ordinance  of 
1787,  which  received  the  sanction  of  Thomas  Jeffer 
son,  who  is  acknowledged  by  all  to  be  the  great  oracle 
and  expounder  of  our  faith. 

Subsequently  the  same  interrogatories  were 
propounded  to  Dr.  Molony  which  had  been  ad 
dressed  to  Campbell,  as  above,  with  the  excep 
tion  of  the  sixth,  respecting  the  interstate  slave- 
trade,  to  which  Dr.  Molony,  the  Democratic 
nominee  for  Congress,  replied  as  follows: 

I  received  the  interrogatories  this  day,  and  as  you 
will  see  by  the  La  Salle  " Democrat' '  and  Ottawa 
"Free  Trader,"  I  took  at  Peru  on  the  5th  and  at  Ot 
tawa  on  the  7th,  the  affirmative  side  of  interrogatories 
ist  and  2d;  and  in  relation  to  the  admission  of  any 
more  slave  States  from  free  territory,  my  position 
taken  at  these  meetings,  as  correctly  reported  in  said 
papers,  was  emphatically  and  distinctly  opposed  to  it. 
In  relation  to  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States 
from  Texas,  whether  I  shall  go  against  it  or  not  will 
depend  upon  the  opinion  that  I  may  hereafter  form 
of  the  true  meaning  and  nature  of  the  resolutions  of 
annexation.  If  by  said  resolutions  the  honor  and  good 
faith  of  the  nation  is  pledged  to  admit  more  slave 
States  from  Texas  when  she  (Texas)  may  apply  for 
admission  of  such  State,  then  I  should,  if  in  Congress, 


1858]  Reply  at  Jonesboro  49 

vote  for  their  admission.  But  if  not  so  pledged  and 
bound  by  sacred  contract,  then  a  bill  for  the  admission 
of  more  slave  States  from  Texas  would  never  receive 
my  vote. 

To  your  fourth  interrogatory  I  answer  most  decid 
edly  in  the  affirmative,  and  for  reasons  set  forth  in 
my  reported  remarks  at  Ottawa  last  Monday. 

To  your  fifth  interrogatory  I  also  reply  in  the  af 
firmative  most  cordially,  and  that  I  will  use  my  utmost 
exertions  to  secure  the  nomination  and  election  of  a 
man  who  will  accomplish  the  objects  of  said  interroga 
tories.  I  most  cordially  approve  of  the  resolutions 
adopted  at  the  union  meeting  held  at  Princeton  on  the 
27th  of  September  ult.  Yours,  etc., 

R.  S.  MOLONY. 

All  I  have  to  say  in  regard  to  Dr.  Molony 
is  that  he  was  the  regularly  nominated  Demo 
cratic  candidate  for  Congress  in  his  district;  was 
elected  at  that  time;  at  the  end  of  his  term  was 
appointed  to  a  land-office  at  Danville.  (I  never 
heard  anything  of  Judge  Douglas's  instrumen 
tality  in  this.)  He  held  this  office  a  consider 
able  time,  and  when  we  were  at  Freeport  the 
other  day,  there  were  handbills  scattered  about 
notifying  the  public  that  after  our  debate  was 
over  R.  S.  Molony  would  make  a  Democratic 
speech  in  favor  of  Judge  Douglas.  That  is  all 
I  know  of  my  own  personal  knowledge.  It  is 
added  here  to  this  resolution  (and  truly,  I  be- 


50  Abraham  Lincoln        [Sept.  15 

lieve)  that  "among  those  who  participated  in 
the  Joliet  convention,  and  who  supported  its 
nominee,  with  his  platform  as  laid  down  in  the 
resolution  of  the  convention,  and  in  his  reply  as 
above  given,  we  call  at  random  the  following 
names,  all  of  which  are  recognized  at  this  day 
as  leading  Democrats:  Cook  County — E.  B. 
Williams,  Charles  McDonell,  Arno  Voss, 
Thomas  Hoyne,  Isaac  Cook," — I  reckon  we 
ought  to  except  Cook, — "F.  C.  Sherman.  Will 
—Joel  A.  Matteson,  S.  W.  Bowen.  Kane— B. 
F.  Hall,  G.  W.  Renwick,  A.  M.  Herrington, 
Elijah  Wilcox.  McHenry — W.  M.  Jackson, 
Enos  W.  Smith,  Neil  Donnelly.  La  Salle- 
John  Rise,  William  Reddick"— William  Red- 
dick — another  one  of  Judge  Douglas's  friends 
that  stood  on  the  stand  with  him  at  Ottawa  at 
the  time  the  judge  says  my  knees  trembled  so 
that  I  had  to  be  carried  away!  The  names  are 
all  here:  "DuPage— Nathan  Allen.  DeKalb 
— Z.  B.  Mayo." 

Here  is  another  set  of  resolutions  which  I 
think  are  apposite  to  the  matter  in  hand. 

On  the  a8th  of  February  of  the  same  year,  a 
Democratic  district  convention  was  held  at 
Naperville,  to  nominate  a  candidate  for  circuit 
judge.  Among  the  delegates  were  Bowen  and 
Kelly,  of  Will;  Captain  Naper,  H.  H.  Cody, 
Nathan  Allen,  of  Du  Page;  W.  M.  Jackson, 


1858]          Reply  at  Jonesboro  51 

J.  M.  Strode,  P.  W.  Platt,  and  Enos  W.  Smith, 
of  McHenry;  J.  Horsman  and  others,  of  Win- 
nebago.  Colonel  Strode  presided  over  the  con 
vention.  The  following  resolutions  were  unan 
imously  adopted — the  first  on  motion  of  P.  W. 
Platt,  the  second  on  motion  of  William  M. 
Jackson: 

Resolved,  That  this  convention  is  in  favor  of  the 
Wilmot  proviso,  both  in  principle  and  practice,  and 
that  we  know  of  no  good  reason  why  any  person 
should  oppose  the  largest  latitude  in  free  soil,  free 
territory,  and  free  speech. 

Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  convention, 
the  time  has  arrived  when  all  men  should  be  free, 
whites  as  well  as  others. 

Judge  Douglas:  What  is  the  date  of  those 
resolutions? 

Mr.  Lincoln:  I  understand  it  was  in  1850, 
but  I  do  not  know  it.  I  do  not  state  a  thing 
and  say  I  know  it  when  I  do  not.  But  I  have 
the  highest  belief  that  this  is  so.  I  know  of  no 
way  to  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  there  is 
an  error  in  it.  I  mean  to  put  a  case  no  stronger 
than  the  truth  will  allow.  But  what  I  was 
going  to  comment  upon  is  an  extract  from  a 
newspaper  in  DeKalb  County,  and  it  strikes  me 
as  being  rather  singular,  I  confess,  under  the 
circumstances.  There  is  a  Judge  Mayo  in  that 
county,  who  is  a  candidate  for  the  legislature, 


52  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  15 

for  the  purpose,  if  he  secures  his  election,  of 
helping  to  reelect  Judge  Douglas.  He  is  the 
editor  of  a  newspaper  [DeKalb  County  "Sen 
tinel"],  and  in  that  paper  I  find  the  extract  I 
am  going  to  read.  It  is  part  of  an  editorial 
article  in  which  he  was  electioneering  as  fiercely 
as  he  could  for  Judge  Douglas  and  against  me. 
It  was  a  curious  thing,  I  think,  to  be  in  such 
a  paper.  I  will  agree  to  that,  and  the  judge 
may  make  the  most  of  it : 

Our  education  has  been  such  that  we  have  ever  been 
rather  in  favor  of  the  equality  of  the  blacks;  that  is, 
that  they  should  enjoy  all  the  privileges  of  the  whites 
where  they  reside.  We  are  aware  that  this  is  not  a 
very  popular  doctrine.  We  have  had  many  a  confab 
with  some  who  are  now  strong  "  Republicans, "  we 
taking  the  broad  ground  of  equality  and  they  the 
opposite  ground. 

We  were  brought  up  in  a  State  where  blacks  were 
voters,  and  we  do  not  know  of  any  inconvenience  re 
sulting  from  it,  though  perhaps  it  would  not  work  so 
well  where  the  blacks  are  more  numerous.  We  have 
no  doubt  of  the  right  of  the  whites  to  guard  against 
such  an  evil,  if  it  is  one.  Our  opinion  is  that  it  would 
be  best  for  all  concerned  to  have  the  colored  popula 
tion  in  a  State  by  themselves  [in  this  I  agree  with 
him]  ;  but  if  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States,  we  say  by  all  means  they  should  have  the 
right  to  have  their  senators  and  their  representatives 


1858]  Reply  at  Jonesboro  53 

in  Congress,  and  to  vote  for  President.  With  us 
"worth  makes  the  man,  and  want  of  it  the  fellow." 
We  have  seen  many  a  "nigger"  that  we  thought  more 
of  than  some  white  men. 

That  is  one  of  Judge  Douglas's  friends.  Now 
I  do  not  want  to  leave  myself  in  an  attitude 
where  I  can  be  misrepresented,  so  I  will  say  I 
do  not  think  the  judge  is  responsible  for  this 
article;  but  he  is  quite  as  responsible  for  it  as  I 
would  be  if  one  of  my  friends  had  said  it.  I 
think  that  is  fair  enough. 

I  have  here  also  a  set  of  resolutions  passed  by 
a  Democratic  State  convention  in  Judge  Doug 
las's  own  good  old  State  of  Vermont,  and  that, 
I  think,  ought  to  be  good  for  him  too. 

Resolved,  That  liberty  is  a  right  inherent  and  in 
alienable  in  man,  and  that  herein  all  men  are  equal. 

Resolved,  That  we  claim  no  authority  in  the  Fed 
eral  Government  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  several 
States.  But  we  do  claim  for  it  constitutional  power 
perpetually  to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  slavery  into 
territory  now  free,  and  abolish  it  wherever,  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  Congress,  it  exists. 

Resolved,  That  this  power  ought  immediately  to  be 
exercised  in  prohibiting  the  introduction  and  existence 
of  slavery  in  New  Mexico  and  California,  in  abolish 
ing  slavery  and  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Co 
lumbia,  on  the  high  seas,  and  wherever  else,  under  the 
Constitution,  it  can  be  reached. 


54  Abraham   Lincoln         [Sept.  15 

Resolved,  That  no  more  slave  States  should  be  ad 
mitted  into  the  Federal  Union. 

Resolved,  That  the  government  ought  to  return  to 
its  ancient  policy,  not  to  extend,  nationalize,  or  en 
courage,  but  to  limit,  localize,  and  discourage  slavery. 

At  Freeport  I  answered  several  interroga 
tories  that  had  been  propounded  to  me  by  Judge 
Douglas  at  the  Ottawa  meeting.  The  judge  has 
yet  not  seen  fit  to  find  any  fault  with  the  posi 
tion  that  I  took  in  regard  to  those  seven  inter 
rogatories,  which  were  certainly  broad  enough, 
in  all  conscience,  to  cover  the  entire  ground. 
In  my  answers,  which  have  been  printed,  and  all 
have  had  the  opportunity  of  seeing,  I  take  the 
ground  that  those  who  elect  me  must  expect  that 
I  will  do  nothing  which  will  not  be  in  accord 
ance  with  those  answers.  I  have  some  right  to 
assert  that  Judge  Douglas  has  no  fault  to  find 
with  them.  But  he  chooses  to  still  try  to  thrust 
me  upon  different  ground  without  paying  any 
attention  to  my  answers,  the  obtaining  of  which 
from  me  cost  him  so  much  trouble  and  concern. 
At  the  same  time,  I  propounded  four  interroga 
tories  to  him,  claiming  it  as  a  right  that  he 
should  answer  as  many  interrogatories  for  me 
as  I  did  for  him,  and  I  would  reserve  myself 
for  a  future  installment  when  I  got  them  ready. 
The  judge,  in  answering  me  upon  this  occasion, 


1858]          Reply  at   Jonesboro  55 

put  in  what  I  suppose  he  intends  as  answers  to 
all  four  of  my  interrogatories.  The  first  one  of 
these  interrogatories  I  have  before  me,  and  it 
is  in  these  words: 

Question  i.  If  the  people  of  Kansas  shall,  by 
means  entirely  unobjectionable  in  all  other  respects, 
adopt  a  State  constitution,  and  ask  admission  into  the 
Union  under  it,  before  they  have  the  requisite  number 
of  inhabitants  according  to  the  English  bill, — some 
ninety-three  thousand, — will  you  vote  to  admit  them  ? 

As  I  read  the  judge's  answer  in  the  newspaper, 
and  as  I  remember  it  as  propounded  at  the  time, 
he  does  not  give  any  answer  which  is  equiva 
lent  to  yes  or  no — I  will  or  I  won't.  He  an 
swers  at  very  considerable  length,  rather  quar 
reling  with  me  for  asking  the  question,  and 
insisting  that  Judge  Trumbull  had  done  some 
thing  that  I  ought  to  say  something  about;  and 
finally  getting  out  such  statements  as  induce  me 
to  infer  that  he  means  to  be  understood  he  will, 
in  that  supposed  case,  vote  for  the  admission  of 
Kansas.  I  only  bring  this  forward  now  for  the 
purpose  of  saying  that,  if  he  chooses  to  put  a 
different  construction  upon  his  answer,  he  may 
do  it.  But  if  he  does  not,  I  shall  from  this  time 
forward  assume  that  he  will  vote  for  the  ad 
mission  of  Kansas  in  disregard  of  the  English 
bill.  He  has  the  right  to  remove  any  misun- 


56  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  15 

derstanding  I  may  have.  I  only  mention  it  now 
that  I  may  hereafter  assume  this  to  be  the  true 
construction  of  his  answer,  if  he  does  not  now 
choose  to  correct  me. 

The  second  interrogatory  that  I  propounded 
to  him  was  this : 

Question  2.  Can  the  people  of  a  United  States 
Territory,  in  any  lawful  way,  against  the  wish  of  any 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  exclude  slavery  from  its 
limits  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  State  constitution? 

To  this  Judge  Douglas  answered  that  they 
can  lawfully  exclude  slavery  from  the  Territory 
prior  to  the  formation  of  a  constitution.  He 
goes  on  to  tell  us  how  it  can  be  done.  As  I 
understand  him,  he  holds  that  it  can  be  done  by 
the  territorial  legislature  refusing  to  make  any 
enactments  for  the  protection  of  slavery  in  the 
Territory,  and  especially  by  adopting  unfriendly 
legislation  to  it.  For  the  sake  of  clearness,  I 
state  it  again:  that  they  can  exclude  slavery 
from  the  Territory — first,  by  withholding  what 
he  assumes  to  be  an  indispensable  assistance  to 
it  in  the  way  of  legislation ;  and,  second,  by  un 
friendly  legislation.  If  I  rightly  understand 
him,  I  wish  to  ask  your  attention  for  a  while  to 
his  position. 

In  the  first  place,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  has  decided  that  any  congressional 


1858]  Reply   at   Jonesboro  57 

prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  is  un 
constitutional — they  have  reached  this  proposi 
tion  as  a  conclusion  from  their  former  proposi 
tion,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
expressly  recognizes  property  in  slaves;  and 
from  that  other  constitutional  provision,  that 
no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  property  without 
due  process  of  law.  Hence  they  reach  the  con 
clusion  that  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  expressly  recognizes  property  in  slaves, 
and  prohibits  any  person  from  being  deprived 
of  property  without  due  process  of  law,  to  pass 
an  act  of  Congress  by  which  a  man  who  owned 
a  slave  on  one  side  of  a  line  would  be  deprived 
of  him  if  he  took  him  on  the  other  side  is  depriv 
ing  him  of  that  property  without  due  process 
of  law.  That  I  understand  to  be  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court.  I  understand  also  that 
Judge  Douglas  adheres  most  firmly  to  that  de 
cision;  and  the  difficulty  is,  how  is  it  possible 
for  any  power  to  exclude  slavery  from  the  Ter 
ritory  unless  in  violation  of  that  decision? 
That  is  the  difficulty. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  in  1856, 
Judge  Trumbull,  in  a  speech,  substantially,  if 
not  directly,  put  the  same  interrogatory  to  Judge 
Douglas,  as  to  whether  the  people  of  a  Terri 
tory  had  the  lawful  power  to  exclude  slavery 
prior  to  the  formation  of  a  constitution?  Judge 


58  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  15 

Douglas  then  answered  at  considerable  length, 
and  his  answer  will  be  found  in  the  "Con 
gressional  Globe,"  under  the  date  of  June  9, 
1856.  The  judge  said  that  whether  the  people 
could  exclude  slavery  prior  to  the  formation  of 
a  constitution  or  not  was  a  question  to  be  de 
cided  by  the  Supreme  Court.  He  put  that 
proposition,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  "Congres 
sional  Globe,"  in  a  variety  of  forms,  all  running 
to  the  same  thing  in  substance — that  it  was  a 
question  for  the  Supreme  Court.  I  maintain 
that  when  he  says,  after  the  Supreme  Court  has 
decided  the  question,  that  the  people  may  yet 
exclude  slavery  by  any  means  whatever,  he  does 
virtually  say  that  it  is  not  a  question  for  the 
Supreme  Court.  He  shifts  his  ground.  I  ap 
peal  to  you  whether  he  did  not  say  it  was  a 
question  for  the  Supreme  Court?  Has  not  the 
Supreme  Court  decided  that  question?  When 
he  now  says  that  the  people  may  exclude  slavery, 
does  he  not  make  it  a  question  for  the  people? 
Does  he  not  virtually  shift  his  ground  and  say 
that  it  is  not  a  question  for  the  court,  but  for 
the  people?  This  is  a  very  simple  proposition 
— a  very  plain  and  naked  one.  It  seems  to  me 
that  there  is  no  difficulty  in  deciding  it.  In  a" 
variety  of  ways  he  said  that  it  was  a  question 
for  the  Supreme  Court.  He  did  not  stop  then 
to  tell  us  that,  whatever  the  Supreme  Court  de- 


1858]  Reply  at   Jonesboro  59 

cides,  the  people  can  by  withholding  necessary 
"police  regulations"  keep  slavery  out.  He  did 
not  make  any  such  answer.  I  submit  to  you 
now,  whether  the  new  state  of  the  case  has  not 
induced  the  judge  to  sheer  away  from  his  origi 
nal  ground.  Would  not  this  be  the  impression 
of  every  fair-minded  man? 

I  hold  that  the  proposition  that  slavery  can 
not  enter  a  new  country  without  police  regula 
tions  is  historically  false.  It  is  not  true  at  all. 
I  hold  that  the  history  of  this  country  shows 
that  the  institution  of  slavery  was  originally 
planted  upon  this  continent  without  these  "po 
lice  regulations"  which  the  judge  now  thinks 
necessary  for  the  actual  establishment  of  it.  Not 
only  so,  but  is  there  not  another  fact — how  came 
this  Dred  Scott  decision  to  be  made?  It  was 
made  upon  the  case  of  a  negro  being  taken  and 
actually  held  in  slavery  in  Minnesota  Territory, 
claiming  his  freedom  because  the  act  of  Con 
gress  prohibited  his  being  so  held  there.  Will 
the  judge  pretend  that  Dred  Scott  was  not  held 
there  without  police  regulations?  There  is  at 
least  one  matter  of  record  as  to  his  having  been 
held  in  slavery  in  the  Territory,  not  only  with 
out  police  regulations,  but  in  the  teeth  of  con 
gressional  legislation  supposed  to  be  valid  at 
the  time.  This  shows  that  there  is  vigor  enough 
in  slavery  to  plant  itself  in  a  new  country  even 


60  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  15 

against  unfriendly  legislation.  It  takes  not  only 
law  but  the  enforcement  of  law  to  keep  it  out. 
That  is  the  history  of  this  country  upon  the  sub 
ject. 

I  wish  to  ask  one  other  question.  It  being 
understood  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  guarantees  property  in  slaves  in  the  Terri 
tories,  if  there  is  any  infringement  of  the  right 
of  that  property,  would  not  the  United  States 
courts,  organized  for  the  government  of  the  Ter 
ritory,  apply  such  remedy  as  might  be  necessary 
in  that  case?  It  is  a  maxim  held  by  the  courts, 
that  there  is  no  wrong  without  its  remedy;  and 
the  courts  have  a  remedy  for  whatever  is  ac 
knowledged  and  treated  as  a  wrong. 

Again:  I  will  ask  you,  my  friends,  if  you 
were  elected  members  of  the  legislature,  what 
would  be  the  first  thing  you  would  have  to  do 
before  entering  upon  your  duties?  Swear  to 
support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
Suppose  you  believe,  as  Judge  Douglas  does, 
that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  guar 
antees  to  your  neighbor  the  right  to  hold  slaves 
in  that  Territory — that  they  are  his  property- 
how  can  you  clear  your  oaths  unless  you  give 
him  such  legislation  as  is  necessary  to  enable  him 
to  enjoy  that  property?  What  do  you  under 
stand  by  supporting  the  Constitution  of  a  State, 
or  of  the  United  States?  Is  it  not  to  give  such 


1858]          Reply   at  Jonesboro  61 

constitutional  helps  to  the  rights  established  by 
that  Constitution  as  may  be  practically  needed? 
Can  you,  if  you  swear  to  support  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  believe  that  the  Constitution  estab 
lishes  a  right,  clear  your  oath,  without  giving 
it  support?  Do  you  support  the  Constitution 
if,  knowing  or  believing  there  is  a  right  es 
tablished  under  it  which  needs  specific  legisla 
tion,  you  withhold  that  legislation?  Do  you 
not  violate  and  disregard  your  oath.  I  can  con 
ceive  of  nothing  plainer  in  the  world.  There 
can  be  nothing  in  the  words  "support  the  Con 
stitution,"  if  you  may  run  counter  to  it  by  re 
fusing  support  to  any  right  established  under 
the  Constitution.  And  what  I  say  here  will  hold 
with  still  more  force  against  the  judge's  doc 
trine  of  "unfriendly  legislation."  How  could 
you,  having  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution, 
and  believing  that  it  guaranteed  the  right  to 
hold  slaves  in  the  Territories,  assist  in  legisla 
tion  intended  to  defeat  that  right?  That  would 
be  violating  your  own  view  of  the  Constitution. 
Not  only  so,  but  if  you  were  to  do  so,  how  long 
would  it  take  the  courts  to  hold  your  votes  un 
constitutional  and  void?  Not  a  moment. 

Lastly  I  would  ask — Is  not  Congress  itself 
under  obligation  to  give  legislative  support  to 
any  right  that  is  established  under  the  United 
States  Constitution?  I  repeat  the  question — Is 


62  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  15 

not  Congress  itself  bound  to  give  legislative 
support  to  any  right  that  is  established  in  the 
United  States  Constitution?  A  member  of  Con 
gress  swears  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  if  he  sees  a  right  established 
by  that  Constitution  which  needs  specific  legis 
lative  protection,  can  he  clear  his  oath  without 
giving  that  protection?  Let  me  ask  you  why 
many  of  us  who  are  opposed  to  slavery  upon 
principle  give  our  acquiescence  to  a  fugitive- 
slave  law?  Why  do  we  hold  ourselves  under  ob 
ligations  to  pass  such  a  law,  and  abide  by  it  when 
it  is  passed?  Because  the  Constitution  makes 
provision  that  the  owners  of  slaves  shall  have 
the  right  to  reclaim  them.  It  gives  the  right  to 
reclaim  slaves,  and  that  right  is,  as  Judge  Doug 
las  says,  a  barren  right,  unless  there  is  legisla 
tion  that  will  enforce  it. 

The  mere  declaration,  "No  person  held  to 
service  or  labor  in  one  State  under  the  laws 
thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall  in  conse 
quence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein  be  dis 
charged  from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall 
be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom 
such  service  or  labor  may  be  due,"  is  powerless 
without  specific  legislation  to  enforce  it.  Now, 
on  what  ground  would  a  member  of  Congress 
who  is  opposed  to  slavery  in  the  abstract  vote  for 
a  fugitive-slave  law,  as  I  would  deem  it  my  duty 


1858]  Reply  at  Jonesboro  63 

to  do?  Because  there  is  a  constitutional  right 
which  needs  legislation  to  enforce  it.  And  al 
though  it  is  distasteful  to  me,  I  have  sworn  to 
support  the  Constitution,  and  having  so  sworn, 
I  cannot  conceive  that  I  do  support  it  if  I  with 
hold  from  that  right  any  necessary  legislation 
to  make  it  practical.  And  if  that  is  true  in  re 
gard  to  a  fugitive-slave  law,  is  the  right  to  have 
fugitive  slaves  reclaimed  any  better  fixed  in  the 
Constitution  than  the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  the 
Territories?  For  this  decision  is  a  just  exposition 
of  the  Constitution,  as  Judge  Douglas  thinks. 
Is  the  one  right  any  better  than  the  other?  Is 
there  any  man  who,  while  a  member  of  Congress, 
would  give  support  to  the  one  any  more  than 
the  other?  If  I  wished  to  refuse  to  give  legis 
lative  support  to  slave  property  in  the  Terri 
tories,  if  a  member  of  Congress,  I  could  not  do 
it,  holding  the  view  that  the  Constitution  estab 
lishes  that  right.  If  I  did  it  at  all,  it  would  be 
because  I  deny  that  this  decision  properly  con 
strues  the  Constitution.  But  if  I  acknowledge, 
with  Judge  Douglas,  that  this  decision  properly 
construes  the  Constitution,  I  cannot  conceive 
that  I  would  be  less  than  a  perjured  man  if  I 
should  refuse  in  Congress  to  give  such  protec 
tion  to  that  property  as  in  its  nature  it  needed. 

At  the  end  of  what  I  have  said  here  I  pro 
pose  to  give  the  judge  my  fifth  interrogatory, 


64  Abraham  Lincoln        [Sept.  15 

which  he  may  take  and  answer  at  his  leisure. 
My  fifth  interrogatory  is  this : 

If  the  slaveholdirig  citizens  of  a  United  States 
Territory  should  need  and  demand  congres 
sional  legislation  for  the  protection  of  their 
slave  property  in  such  Territory,  would  you,  as 
a  member  of  Congress,  vote  for  or  against  such 
legislation? 

Judge  Douglas:  Will  you  repeat  that?  I 
want  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Lincoln:  If  the  slaveholding  citizens  of 
a  United  States  Territory  should  need  and  de 
mand  congressional  legislation  for  the  protec 
tion  of  their  slave  property  in  such  Territory, 
would  you,  as  a  member  of  Congress,  vote  for 
or  against  such  legislation? 

I  am  aware  that  in  some  of  the  speeches  Judge 
Douglas  has  made,  he  has  spoken  as  if  he  did 
not  know  or  think  that  the  Supreme  Court  had 
decided  that  a  territorial  legislature  cannot  ex 
clude  slavery.  Precisely  what  the  judge  would 
say  upon  the  subject — whether  he  would  say 
definitely  that  he  does  not  understand  they  have 
so  decided,  or  whether  he  would  say  he  does 
understand  that  the  court  have  so  decided,  I  do 
not  know;  but  I  know  that  in  his  speech  at 
Springfield  he  spoke  of  it  as  a  thing  they  had 
not  decided  yet;  and  in  his  answer  to  me  at  Free- 
port,  he  spoke  of  it  again,  so  far  as  I  can  com- 


1858]          Reply  at  Jonesboro  65 

prehend  it,  as  a  thing  that  had  not  yet  been  de 
cided.  Now  I  hold  that  if  the  judge  does  enter 
tain  that  view,  I  think  that  he  is  not  mistaken 
in  so  far  as  it  can  be  said  that  the  court  has  not 
decided  anything  save  the  mere  question  of  juris 
diction.  I  know  the  legal  argements  that  can 
be  made — that  after  a  court  has  decided  that  it 
cannot  take  jurisdiction  in  a  case,  it  then  has 
decided  all  that  is  before  it,  and  that  is  the  end 
of  it.  A  plausible  argument  can  be  made  in 
favor  of  that  proposition,  but  I  know  that  Judge 
Douglas  has  said  in  one  of  his  speeches  that  the 
court  went  forward,  like  honest  men  as  they 
were,  and  decided  all  the  points  in  the  case.  If 
any  points  are  really  extra-judicially  decided  be 
cause  not  necessarily  before  them,  then  this  one 
as  to  the  power  of  the  territorial  legislature  to 
exclude  slavery  is  one  of  them,  as  also  the  one 
that  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  null  and 
void.  They  are  both  extra-judicial,  or  nei 
ther  is,  according  as  the  court  held  that 
they  had  no  jurisdiction  in  the  case  be 
tween  the  parties,  because  of  want  of  ca 
pacity  of  one  party  to  maintain  a  suit  in 
that  court.  I  want,  if  I  have  sufficient  time,  to 
show  that  the  court  did  pass  its  opinion,  but  that 
is  the  only  thing  actually  done  in  the  case.  If 
they  did  not  decide,  they  showed  what  they  were 
ready  to  decide  whenever  the  matter  was  before 


66  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  15 

them.  What  is  that  opinion?  After  having  ar 
gued  that  Congress  had  no  power  to  pass  a  law 
excluding  slavery  from  a  United  States  Terri 
tory,  they  then  used  language  to  this  effect:  That 
inasmuch  as  Congress  itself  could  not  exercise 
such  a  power,  it  followed  as  a  matter  of  course 
that  it  could  not  authorize  a  territorial  govern 
ment  to  exercise  it,  for  the  territorial  legislature 
can  do  no  more  than  Congress  could  do.  Thus 
it  expressed  its  opinion  emphatically  against  the 
power  of  a  territorial  legislature  to  exclude  slav 
ery,  leaving  us  in  just  as  little  doubt  on  that 
point  as  upon  any  other  point  they  really  de 
cided. 

Now,  fellow-citizens,  my  time  is  nearly  out. 
I  find  a  report  of  a  speech  made  by  Judge  Doug 
las  at  Joliet,  since  we  last  met  at  Freeport, — 
published,  I  believe,  in  the  Missouri  "Repub 
lican," — on  the  9th  of  this  month,  in  which 
Judge  Douglas  says: 

You  know  at  Ottawa  I  read  this  platform,  and 
asked  him  if  he  concurred  in  each  and  all  of  the  prin 
ciples  set  forth  in  it.  He  would  not  answer  these 
questions.  At  last  I  said  frankly,  "I  wish  you  to  an 
swer  them,  because  when  I  get  them  up  here  where 
the  color  of  your  principles  is  a  little  darker  than  in 
Egypt,  I  intend  to  trot  you  down  to  Jonesboro."  The 
very  notice  that  I  was  going  to  take  him  down  to 
Egypt  made  him  tremble  in  the  knees  so  that  he  had 


1858]  Reply  at  Jonesboro  67 

to  be  carried  from  the  platform.  He  laid  up  seven 
days,  and  in  the  meantime  held  a  consultation  with 
his  political  physicians ;  they  had  Lovejoy  and  Farns- 
worth  and  all  the  leaders  of  the  Abolition  party. 
They  consulted  it  all  over,  and  at  last  Lincoln  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  he  would  answer;  so  he  came  to 
Freeport  last  Friday.  , 

Now  that  statement  altogether  furnishes  a  sub 
ject  for  philosophical  contemplation.  I  have 
been  treating  it  in  that  way,  and  I  have  really 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  I  can  explain  it  in 
no  other  way  than  by  believing  the  judge  is 
crazy.  If  he  was  in  his  right  mind,  I  cannot 
conceive  how  he  would  have  risked  disgusting 
the  four  or  five  thousand  of  his  own  friends  who 
stood  there  and  knew,  as  to  my  having  been  car 
ried  from  the  platform,  that  there  was  not  a 
word  of  truth  in  it. 

Judge  Douglas :  Didn't  they  carry  you  off? 

Mr.  Lincoln:  There;  that  question  illustrates 
the  character  of  this  man  Douglas  exactly.  He 
smiles  now  and  says,  "Didn't  they  carry  you 
off?"  But  he  said  then,  "He  had  to  be  carried 
off" ;  and  he  said  it  to  convince  the  country  that 
he  had  so  completely  broken  me  down  by  his 
speech  that  I  had  to  be  carried  away.  Now 
he  seeks  to  dodge  it,  and  asks,  "Didn't  they 
carry  you  off?"  Yes,  they  did.  But,  Judge 


68  Abraham  Lincoln        [Sept.  15 

Douglas,  why  didn't  you  tell  the  truth?  T  would 
like  to  know  why  you  didn't  tell  the  truth  about 
it.  And  then  again,  "He  laid  up  seven  days." 
He  puts  this  in  print  for  the  people  of  the  coun 
try  to  read  as  a  serious  document.  I  think  if 
he  had  been  in  his  sober  senses  he  would  not 
have  risked  that  barefacedness  in  the  presence 
of  thousands  of  his  own  friends,  who  knew  that 
I  made  speeches  within  six  of  the  seven  days  at 
Henry,  Marshall  County;  Augusta,  Hancock 
County;  and  Macomb,  McDonough  County,  in 
cluding  all  the  necessary  travel  to  meet  him 
again  at  Freeport  at  the  end  of  the  six  days. 
Now,  I  say,  there  is  no  charitable  way  to  look 
at  that  statement,  except  to  conclude  that  he  is 
actually  crazy. 

There  is  another  thing  in  that  statement  that 
alarmed  me  very  greatly  as  he  states  it — that 
he  was  going  to  "trot  me  down  to  Egypt." 
Thereby  he  would  have  you  to  infer  that  I 
would  not  come  to  Egypt  unless  he  forced  me 
— that  I  could  not  be  got  here,  unless  he,  giant 
like,  had  hauled  me  down  here.  That  state 
ment  he  makes,  too,  in  the  teeth  of  the  knowl 
edge  that  I  made  the  stipulation  to  come  down 
here,  and  that  he  himself  had  been  very  reluc 
tant  to  enter  into  the  stipulation.  More  than 
all  this,  Judge  Douglas,  when  he  made  that 
statement,  must  have  been  crazy,  and  wholly 


1858]          Reply  at   Jonesboro  69 

out  of  his  sober  senses,  or  else  he  would  have 
known  that,  when  he  got  me  down  here,  that 
promise — that  windy  promise — of  his  powers 
to  annihilate  me  wouldn't  amount  to  anything. 
Now,  how  little  do  I  look  like  being  carried 
away  trembling?  Let  the  judge  go  on,  and  after 
he  is  done  with  his  half  hour,  I  want  you  all,  if 
I  can't  go  home  myself,  to  let  me  stay  and  rot 
here;  and  if  anything  happens  to  the  judge,  if 
I  cannot  carry  him  to  the  hotel  and  put  him  to 
bed,  let  me  stay  here  and  rot.  I  say,  then,  there 
is  something  extraordinary  in  this  statement.  I 
ask  you  if  you  know  any  other  living  man  who 
would  make  such  a  statement?  I  will  ask  my 
friend  Casey,  over  there,  if  he  would  do  such  a 
thing?  Would  he  send  that  out  and  have  his 
men  take  it  as  the  truth? 

Did  the  judge  talk  of  trotting  me  down  to 
Egypt  to  scarce  me  to  death?  Why,  I  know  this 
people  better  than  he  does.  I  was  raised  just  a 
little  east  of  here.  I  am  a  part  of  this  people. 
But  the  judge  was  raised  further  north,  and  per 
haps  he  has  some  horrid  idea  of  what  this 
people  might  be  induced  to  do.  But  really  I 
have  talked  about  this  matter  perhaps  longer 
than  I  ought,  for  it  is  no  great  thing,  and  yet 
the  smallest  are  often  the  most  difficult  things 
to  deal  with.  The  judge  has  set  about  seriously 
trying  to  make  the  impression  that  when  we 


70  Abraham   Lincoln         [Sept.  15 

meet  at  different  places  I  am  literally  in  his 
clutches — that  I  am  a  poor,  helpless,  decrepit 
mouse,  and  that  I  can  do  nothing  at  all.  This 
is  one  of  the  ways  he  has  taken  to  create  that 
impression.  I  don't  know  any  other  way  to 
meet  it,  except  this.  I  don't  want  to  quarrel 
with  him, — to  call  him  a  liar, — but  when  I  come 
square  up  to  him  I  don't  know  what  else  to  call 
him,  if  I  must  tell  the  truth  out.  I  want  to  be 
at  peace,  and  reserve  all  my  fighting  powers  for 
necessary  occasions.  My  time,  now,  is  very 
nearly  out,  and  I  give  up  the  trifle  that  is  left 
to  the  judge  to  let  him  set  my  knees  trembling 
again — if  he  can. 


1858]       Rejoinder  at  Jonesboro          71 


Mr.  Douglas's  Rejoinder  in  the  Jonesboro  Joint 
Debate. 

MY  FRIENDS,  while  I  am  very  grate 
ful  to  you  for  the  enthusiasm  which 
you  show  for  me,  I  will  say  in  all  can 
dor,   that  your  quietness  will   be  much  more 
agreeable  than  your  applause,  inasmuch  as  you 
deprive  me  of  some  part  of  my  time  whenever 
you  cheer. 

I  will  commence  where  Mr.  Lincoln  left  off, 
and  make  a  remark  upon  this  serious  complaint 
of  his  about  my  speech  at  Joliet.  I  did  not  say 
there  in  a  playful  manner  that  when  I  put  these 
questions  to  Mr.  Lincoln  at  Ottawa,  he  failed  to 
answer,  and  that  he  trembled,  and  had  to  be  car 
ried  off  the  stand,  and  required  seven  days  to  get 
up  his  reply.  That  he  did  not  walk  off  from 
that  stand  he  will  not  deny.  That  when  the 
crowd  went  away  from  the  stand  with  me,  a  few 
persons  carried  him  home  on  their  shoulders 
and  laid  him  down,  he  will  admit.  I  wish  to 
say  to  you  that  whenever  I  degrade  my  friends 
and  myself  by  allowing  them  to  carry  me  on 
their  backs  along  through  the  public  streets, 
when  I  am  able  to  walk,  I  am  willing  to  be 


72  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Sept.  15 

deemed  crazy.  I  did  not  say  whether  I  beat 
him  or  he  beat  me  in  the  argument.  It  is  true 
I  put  these  questions  to  him,  and  I  put  them  not 
as  mere  idle  questions,  but  showed  that  I  based 
them  upon  the  creed  of  the  Black  Republican 
party,  as  declared  by  their  conventions  in  that 
portion  of  the  State  which  he  depends  upon  to 
elect  him,  and  desired  to  know  whether  he  in 
dorsed  that  creed.  He  would  not  answer. 
When  I  reminded  him  that  I  intended  bringing 
him  into  Egypt  and  renewing  my  questions  if 
he  refused  to  answer,  he  then  consulted,  and  did 
get  up  his  answers  one  week  after — answers 
which  I  may  refer  to  in  a  few  minutes,  and  show 
you  how  equivocal  they  are.  My  object  was  to 
make  him  avow  whether  or  not  he  stood  by  the 
platform  of  his  party;  the  resolutions  I  then 
read,  and  upon  which  I  based  my  questions,  had 
been  adopted  by  his  party  in  the  Galena  con 
gressional  district,  and  the  Chicago  and  Bloom- 
ington  congressional  districts,  composing  a  large 
majority  of  the  counties  in  this  State  that  give 
Republican  or  Abolition  majorities. 

Mr.  Lincoln  cannot  and  will  not  deny  that 
the  doctrines  laid  down  in  these  resolutions  were 
in  substance  put  forth  in  Lovejoy's  resolutions, 
which  were  voted  for  by  a  majority  of  his  party, 
some  of  them,  if  not  all,  receiving  the  support 
of  every  man  of  his  party.  Hence  I  laid  a  foun- 


1858]       Rejoinder  at  Jonesboro  73 

dation  for  my  questions  to  him  before  I  asked 
him  whether  that  was  or  was  not  the  platform 
of  his  party.  He  says  that  he  answered  my  ques 
tions.  One  of  them  was  whether  he  would  vote 
to  admit  any  more  slave  States  into  the  Union. 
The  creed  of  the  Republican  party,  as  set  forth 
in  the  resolutions  of  their  various  conventions, 
was  that  they  would  under  no  circumstances  vote 
to  admit  another  slave  State.  It  was  put  forth 
in  the  Lovejoy  resolutions  in  the  legislature;  it 
was  put  forth  and  passed  in  a  majority  of  all  the 
counties  of  this  State  which  give  Abolition  or 
Republican  majorities,  or  elect  members  to  the 
legislature  of  that  school  of  politics.  I  had  a 
right  to  know  whether  he  would  vote  for  or 
against  the  admission  of  another  slave  State  in 
the  event  the  people  wanted  it.  He  first  an 
swered  that  he  was  not  pledged  on  the  subject, 
and  then  said: 

In  regard  to  the  other  question,  of  whether  I  am 
pledged  to  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States 
into  the  Union,  I  state  to  you  very  frankly  that  I 
would  be  exceedingly  sorry  ever  to  be  put  in  the  posi 
tion  of  having  to  pass  on  that  question.  I  should  be 
exceedingly  glad  to  know  that  there  would  never  be 
another  slave  State  admitted  into  the  Union;  but  I 
must  add  that  if  slavery  shall  be  kept  out  of  the  Ter 
ritories  during  the  territorial  existence  of  any  one 
given  Territory,  and  then  the  people,  having  a  fair 


74  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Sept.  15 

chance  and  clear  field  when  they  come  to  adopt  a 
constitution,  do  such  an  extraordinary  thing  as  adopt 
a  slave  constitution,  uninfluenced  by  the  actual  pres 
ence  of  the  institution  among  them,  I  see  no  alterna 
tive,  if  we  own  the  country,  but  to  admit  them  into 
the  Union. 

Now  analyze  that  answer.  In  the  first  place 
he  says  he  would  be  exceedingly  sorry  to  be  put 
in  a  position  where  he  would  have  to  vote  on  the 
question  of  the  admission  of  a  slave  State.  Why 
is  he  a  candidate  for  the  Senate  if  he  would  be 
sorry  to  be  put  in  that  position?  I  trust  the  peo 
ple  of  Illinois  will  not  put  him  in  a  position 
which  he  would  be  so  sorry  to  occupy.  The 
next  position  he  takes  is  that  he  would  be  glad 
to  know  that  there  would  never  be  another  slave 
State,  yet,  in  certain  contingencies,  he  might 
have  to  vote  for  one.  What  is  that  contingency? 
"If  Congress  keeps  slavery  out  by  law  while  it 
is  a  Territory,  and  then  the  people  should  have 
a  fair  chance  and  should  adopt  slavery,  unin 
fluenced  by  the  presence  of  the  institution,"  he 
supposed  he  would  have  to  admit  the  State. 
Suppose  Congress  should  not  keep  slavery  out 
during  their  territorial  existence,  then  how 
would  he  vote  when  the  people  applied  for  ad 
mission  into  the  Union  with  a  slave  constitu 
tion?  That  he  does  not  answer,  and  that  is  the 
condition  of  every  Territory  we  have  now  got. 


1858]       Rejoinder  at  Jonesboro  75 

Slavery  is  not  kept  out  of  Kansas  by  act  of  Con 
gress,  and  when  I  put  the  question  to  Mr.  Lin 
coln,  whether  he  will  vote  for  the  admission 
with  or  without  slavery,  as  her  people  may  de 
sire,  he  will  not  answer,  and  you  have  not  got  an 
answer  from  him.  In  Nebraska  slavery  is  not 
prohibited  by  act  of  Congress,  but  the  people  are 
allowed,  under  the  Nebraska  bill,  to  do  as  they 
please  on  the  subject;  and  when  I  ask  him 
whether  he  will  vote  to  admit  Nebraska  with  a 
slave  constitution  if  her  people  desire  it,  he  will 
not  answer.  So  with  New  Mexico,  Washing 
ton  Territory,  Arizona,  and  the  four  new  States 
to  be  admitted  from  Texas.  You  cannot  get  an 
answer  from  him  to  these  questions.  His  an 
swer  only  applies  to  a  given  case,  to  a  condition 
— things  which  he  knows  do  not  exist  in  any 
one  Territory  in  the  Union.  He  tries  to  give 
you  to  understand  that  he  would  allow  the  peo 
ple  to  do  as  they  please,  and  yet  he  dodges  the 
question  as  to  every  Territory  in  the  Union.  I 
now  ask  why  cannot  Mr.  Lincoln  answer  to  each 
of  these  Territories?  He  has  not  done  it,  and 
will  not  do  it.  The  Abolitionists  up  North  un 
derstand  that  this  answer  is  made  with  a  view 
of  not  committing  himself  on  any  one  Territory 
now  in  existence.  It  is  so  understood  there,  and 
you  cannot  expect  an  answer  from  him  on  a 
case  that  applies  to  any  one  Territory,  or  ap- 


j6  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Sept.  15 

plies  to  the  new  States  which  by  compact  we  are 
pledged  to  admit  out  of  Texas,  when  they  have 
the  requisite  population  and  desire  admission. 
I  submit  to  you  whether  he  has  made  a  frank 
answer,  so  that  you  can  tell  how  he  would  vote 
in  any  one  of  these  cases.  "He  would  be  sorry 
to  be  put  in  the  position."  Why  would  he  be 
sorry  to  be  put  in  this  position  if  his  duty  re 
quired  him  to  give  the  vote?  If  the  people  of  a 
Territory  ought  to  be  permitted  to  come  into 
the  Union  as  a  State,  with  slavery  or  without  it, 
as  they  pleased,  why  not  give  the  vote  admitting 
them  cheerfully?  If  in  his  opinion  they  ought 
not  to  come  in  with  slavery,  even  if  they  wanted 
to,  why  not  say  that  he  would  cheerfully  vote 
against  their  admission?  His  intimation  is  that 
conscience  would  not  let  him  vote  "No,"  and 
he  would  be  sorry  to  do  that  which  his  con 
science  would  compel  him  to  do  as  an  honest 
man. 

In  regard  to  the  contract  or  bargain  between 
Trumbull,  the  Abolitionists,  and  him,  which  he 
denies,  I  wish  to  say  that  the  charge  can  be 
proved  by  notorious  historical  facts.  Trumbull, 
Lovejoy,  Giddings,  Fred  Douglass,  Hale,  and 
Banks  were  traveling  the  State  at  that  time  mak 
ing  speeches  on  the  same  side  and  in  the  same 
cause  with  him.  He  contents  himself  with  the 
same  denial  that  no  such  thing  occurred.  Does 


1858]       Rejoinder  at  Jonesboro  77 

he  deny  that  he,  and  Trumbull,  and  Breese,  and 
Giddings,  and  Chase,  and  Fred  Douglass,  and 
Lovejoy,  and  all  those  Abolitionists  and  desert 
ers  from  the  Democratic  party,  did  make 
speeches  all  over  this  State  in  the  same  common 
cause?  Does  he  deny  that  Jim  Matheny  was 
then,  and  is  now,  his  confidential  friend,  and 
does  he  deny  that  Matheny  made  the  charge  of 
the  bargain  and  fraud  in  his  own  language,  as 
I  have  read  it  from  his  printed  speech?  Ma 
theny  spoke  of  his  own  personal  knowledge  of 
that  bargain  existing  between  Lincoln,  Trum 
bull,  and  the  Abolitionists.  He  still  remains 
Lincoln's  confidential  friend,  and  is  now  a  can 
didate  for  Congress,  and  is  canvassing  the 
Springfield  district  for  Lincoln.  I  assert  that 
I  can  prove  the  charge  to  be  true  in  detail  if  I 
can  ever  get  it  where  I  can  summon  and  com 
pel  the  attendance  of  witnesses.  I  have  the 
statement  of  another  man  to  the  same  effect  as 
that  made  by  Matheny,  which  I  am  not  per 
mitted  to  use  yet,  but  Jim  Matheny  is  a  good 
witness  on  that  point,  and  the  history  of  the 
country  is  conclusive  upon  it.  That  Lincoln 
up  to  that  time  had  been  a  Whig,  and  then  un 
dertook  to  Abolitionize  the  Whigs  and  bring 
them  into  the  Abolition  camp,  is  beyond  denial ; 
that  Trumbull  up  to  that  time  had  been  a  Demo 
crat,  and  deserted,  and  undertook  to  Abolition- 


78  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Sept.  15 

ize  the  Democracy,  and  take  them  into  the  Abo 
lition  camp,  is  beyond  denial ;  that  they  are  both 
now  active,  leading,  distinguished  members  of 
this  Abolition  Republican  party,  in  full  com 
munion,  is  a  fact  that  cannot  be  questioned  or 
denied. 

But  Lincoln  is  not  willing  to  be  responsible 
for  the  creed  of  his  party.  He  complains  be 
cause  I  hold  him  responsible,  and  in  order  to 
avoid  the  issue  he  attempts  to  show  that  indi 
viduals  in  the  Democratic  party,  many  years  ago, 
expressed  Abolition  sentiments.  It  is  true  that 
Tom  Campbell,  when  a  candidate  for  Congress 
in  1850,  published  the  letter  which  Lincoln  read. 
When  I  asked  Lincoln  for  the  date  of  that  letter 
he  could  not  give  it.  The  date  of  the  letter  has 
been  suppressed  by  other  speakers  who  have 
used  it,  though  I  take  it  for  granted  that  Lin 
coln  did  not  know  the  date.  If  he  will  take  the 
trouble  to  examine,  he  will  find  that  the  letter 
was  published  only  two  days  before  the  election, 
and  was  never  seen  until  after  it,  except  in  one 
county.  Tom  Campbell  would  have  been  beat 
to  death  by  the  Democratic  party  if  that  letter 
had  been  made  public  in  his  district.  As  to 
Molony,  it  is  true  that  he  uttered  sentiments  of 
the  kind  referred  to  by  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  the 
best  Democrats  would  not  vote  for  him  for  that 
reason.  I  returned  from  Washington  after  the 


1858]       Rejoinder  at  Jonesboro  79 

passage  of  the  compromise  measures  in  1850, 
and  when  I  found  Molony  running  under  John 
Wentworth's  tutelage,  and  on  his  platform,  I 
denounced  him,  and  declared  that  he  was  no 
Democrat.  In  my  speech  at  Chicago,  just  be 
fore  the  election  that  year,  I  went  before  the 
infuriated  people  of  that  city  and  vindicated 
the  compromise  measures  of  1850.  Remember, 
the  city  council  had  passed  resolutions  nullify 
ing  acts  of  Congress  and  instructing  the  police 
to  withhold  their  assistance  from  the  execution 
of  the  laws,  and  as  I  was  the  only  man  in 
the  city  of  Chicago  who  was  responsible 
for  the  passage  of  the  compromise  meas 
ures,  I  went  before  the  crowd,  justified  each 
and  every  one  of  those  measures,  and  let 
it  be  said  to  the  eternal  honor  of  the  peo 
ple  of  Chicago,  that  when  they  were  convinced 
by  my  exposition  of  those  measures  that  they 
were  right,  and  they  had  done  wrong  in  oppos 
ing  them,  they  repealed  their  nullifying  resolu 
tions,  and  declared  that  they  would  acquiesce 
in  and  support  the  laws  of  the  land.  These  facts 
are  well  known,  and  Mr.  Lincoln  can  only  get 
up  individual  instances,  dating  back  to  1849-50, 
which  are  contradicted  by  the  whole  tenor  of 
the  Democratic  creed. 

But  Mr.  Lincoln  does  not  want  to  be  held  re 
sponsible  for  the  Black  Republican  doctrine  of 


8o  Stephen   A.    Douglas      [Sept.  15 

no  more  slave  States.  Farnsworth  is  the  candi 
date  of  his  party  to-day  in  the  Chicago  district, 
and  he  made  a  speech  in  the  last  Congress  in 
which  he  called  upon  God  to  palsy  his  right 
arm  if  he  ever  voted  for  the  admission  of  another 
slave  State,  whether  the  people  wanted  it  or  not. 
Lovejoy  is  making  speeches  all  over  the  State 
for  Lincoln  now,  and  taking  ground  against  any 
more  slave  States.  Washburne,  the  Black  Re 
publican  candidate  for  Congress  in  the  Galena 
district,  is  making  speeches  in  favor  of  this  same 
Abolition  platform  declaring  no  more  slave 
States.  Why  are  men  running  for  Congress  in 
the  northern  districts,  and  taking  that  Abolition 
platform  for  their  guide,  when  Mr.  Lincoln 
does  not  want  to  be  held  to  it  down  here  in 
Egypt  and  in  the  center  of  the  State,  and  objects 
to  it  so  as  to  get  votes  here.  Let  me  tell  Mr. 
Lincoln  that  his  party  in  the  northern  part  of 
the  State  hold  to  that  Abolition  platform,  and 
that  if  they  do  not  in  the  south  and  in  the  center, 
they  present  the  extraordinary  spectacle  of  a 
"house  divided  against  itself,"  and  hence  "can 
not  stand."  I  now  bring  down  upon  him  the 
vengeance  of  his  own  scripture  quotation,  and 
give  it  a  more  appropriate  application  than  he 
did,  when  I  say  to  him  that  his  party,  Abolition 
in  one  end  of  the  State  and  opposed  to  it  in  the 
other,  is  a  house  divided  against  itself,  and  can- 


1858]       Rejoinder  at  Jonesboro          81 

not  stand,  and  ought  not  to  stand,  for  it  attempts 
to  cheat  the  American  people  out  of  their  votes 
by  disguising  its  sentiments. 

Mr.  Lincoln  attempts  to  cover  up  and  get 
over  his  Abolitionism  by  telling  you  that  he  was 
raised  a  little  east  of  you,  beyond  the  Wabash 
in  Indiana,  and  he  thinks  that  makes  a  mighty 
sound  and  good  man  of  him  on  all  these  ques 
tions.  I  do  not  know  that  the  place  where  a 
man  is  born  or  raised  has  much  to  do  with  his 
political  principles.  The  worst  Abolitionists  I 
have  ever  known  in  Illinois  have  been  men  who 
have  sold  their  slaves  in  Alabama  and  Kentucky, 
and  have  come  here  and  turned  Abolitionists 
while  spending  the  money  got  for  the  negroes 
they  sold,  and  I  do  not  know  that  an  Abolition 
ist  from  Indiana  or  Kentucky  ought  to  have  any 
more  credit  because  he  was  born  and  raised 
among  slaveholders.  I  do  not  know  that  a  na 
tive  of  Kentucky  is  more  excusable  because 
raised  among  slaves ;  his  father  and  mother  hav 
ing  owned  slaves,  he  comes  to  Illiniois,  turns 
Abolitionist,  and  slanders  the  graves  of  his  fa 
ther  and  mother,  and  breathes  curses  upon  the 
institutions  under  which  he  was  born,  and  his 
father  and  mother  bred.  True,  I  was  not  born 
out  West  here.  I  was  born  away  down  in 
Yankee  land ;  I  was  born  in  a  valley  in  Vermont, 
with  the  high  mountains  around  me.  I  love 


82  Stephen   A.    Douglas      [Sept.  15 

the  old  green  mountains  and  valleys  of  Ver 
mont,  where  I  was  born,  and  where  I  played  in 
my  childhood.  I  went  up  to  visit  them  some 
seven  or  eight  years  ago,  for  the  first  time  for 
twenty  odd  years.  When  I  got  there  they  treat 
ed  me  very  kindly.  They  invited  me  to  the 
commencement  of  their  college,  placed  me  on 
the  seats  with  their  distinguished  guests,  and 
conferred  upon  me  the  degree  of  LL.  D.  in 
Latin  (doctor  of  laws),  the  same  as  they  did 
Old  Hickory,  at  Cambridge,  many  years  ago, 
and  I  give  you  my  word  and  honor  I  under 
stood  just  as  much  of  the  Latin  as  he  did.  When 
they  got  through  conferring  the  honorary  de 
gree,  they  called  upon  me  for  a  speech,  and  I 
got  up  with  my  heart  full  and  swelling  with 
gratitude  for  their  kindness,  and  I  said  to  them, 
"My  friends,  Vermont  is  the  most  glorious  spot 
on  the  face  of  this  globe  for  a  man  to  be  born 
in,  provided  he  emigrates  when  he  is  very 
young." 

I  emigrated  when  I  was  very  young.  I  came 
out  here  when  I  was  a  boy,  and  found  my  mind 
liberalized,  and  my  opinions  enlarged  when  I 
got  on  these  broad  prairies,  with  only  the  heav 
ens  to  bound  my  vision,  instead  of  having  them 
circumscribed  by  the  little  narrow  ridges  that 
surrounded  the  valley  where  I  was  born.  But 
I  discard  all  flings  at  the  land  where  a  man  was 


1858]       Rejoinder  at  Jonesboro  83 

born.  I  wish  to.  be  judged  by  my  principles, 
by  those  great  public  measures  and  constitutional 
principles  upon  which  the  peace,  the  happiness, 
and  the  perpetuity  of  this  republic  now  rests. 

Mr.  Lincoln  has  framed  another  question, 
propounded  it  to  me,  and  desired  my  answer. 
As  I  have  said  before,  I  did  not  put  a  question 
to  him  that  I  did  not  first  lay  a  foundation  for 
by  showing  that  it  was  a  part  of  the  platform  of 
the  party  whose  votes  he  is  now  seeking,  adopted 
in  a  majority  of  the  counties  where  he  now 
hopes  to  get  a  majority,  and  supported  by  the 
candidates  of  his  party  now  running  in  those 
counties.  But  I  will  answer  his  question.  It 
is  as  follows:  "If  the  slaveholding  citizens  of 
a  United  States  Territory  should  need  and  de 
mand  congressional  legislation  for  the  protec 
tion  of  their  slave  property  in  such  Territory, 
would  you,  as  a  member  of  Congress,  vote  for 
or  against  such  legislation?"  I  answer  him  that 
it  is  a  fundamental  article  in  the  Democratic 
creed  that  there  should  be  non-interference 
and  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery 
in  the  States  or  Territories.  Mr.  Lincoln  could 
have  found  an  answer  to  his  question  in  the 
Cincinnati  platform,  if  he  had  desired  it.  The 
Democratic  party  have  always  stood  by  that 
great  principle  of  non-interference  and  non-in 
tervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the 


84  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Sept.  15 

States  or  Territories  alike,  and  I  stand  on  that 
platform  now. 

Now  I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact 
that  Lincoln  did  not  define  his  own  position  in 
his  own  question.  How  does  he  stand  on  that 
question?  He  put  the  question  to  me  at  Free- 
port  whether  or  not  I  would  vote  to  admit  Kan 
sas  into  the  Union  before  she  had  93,420  inhab 
itants.  I  answered  him  at  once  that  it  having 
been  decided  that  Kansas  had  now  population 
enough  for  a  slave  State,  she  had  population 
enough  for  a  free  State. 

I  answered  the  question  unequivocally,  and 
then  I  asked  him  whether  he  would  vote  for  or 
against  the  admission  of  Kansas  before  she  had 
93,420  inhabitants,  and  he  would  not  answer  me. 
To-day  he  has  called  attention  to  the  fact  that, 
in  his  opinion,  my  answer  on  that  question  was 
not  quite  plain  enough,  and  yet  he  has  not  an 
swered  it  himself.  He  now  puts  a  question  in 
relation  to  congressional  interference  in  the  Ter 
ritories  to  me.  I  answer  him  direct,  and  yet  he 
has  not  answered  the  question  himself.  I  ask 
you  whether  a  man  has  any  right,  in  common 
decency,  to  put  questions,  in  these  public  dis 
cussions,  to  his  opponent,  which  he  will  not  an 
swer  himself  when  they  are  pressed  home  to 
him?  I  have  asked  him  three  times,  whether 
he  would  vote  to  admit  Kansas  whenever  the 


1858]        Rejoinder  at  Jonesboro  85 

people  applied  with  a  constitution  of  their  own 
making  and  their  own  adoption,  under  circum 
stances  that  were  fair,  just,  and  unexceptionable, 
but  I  cannot  get  an  answer  from  him.  Nor  will 
he  answer  the  question  which  he  put  to  me,  and 
which  I  have  just  answered,  in  relation  to  con 
gressional  interference  in  the  Territories,  by 
making  a  slave  code  there. 

It  is  true  that  he  goes  on  to  answer  the  ques 
tion  by  arguing  that  under  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  it  is  the  duty  of  a  man  to  vote 
for  a  slave  code  in  the  Territories.  He  says  that 
it  is  his  duty,  under  the  decision  that  the  court 
has  made,  and  if  he  believes  in  that  decision  he 
would  be  a  perjured  man  if  he  did  not  give  the 
vote.  I  want  to  know  whether  he  is  not  bound 
to  a  decision  which  is  contrary  to  his  opinions 
just  as  much  as  to  one  in  accordance  with  his 
opinions.  If  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
the  tribunal  created  by  the  Constitution  to  de 
cide  the  question,  is  final  and  binding,  is  he  not 
bound  by  it  just  as  strongly  as  if  he  was  for  it 
instead  of  against  it  originally?  Is  every  man 
in  this  land  allowed  to  resist  decisions  he  does 
not  like,  and  only  support  those  that  meet  his 
approval?  What  are  important  courts  worth 
unless  their  decisions  are  binding  on  all  good 
citizens?  It  is  the  fundamental  principle  of  the 
judiciary  that  its  decisions  are  final.  It  is  ere- 


86  Stephen   A.    Douglas      [Sept.  15 

ated  for  that  purpose,  so  that  when  you  cannot 
agree  among  yourselves  on  a  disputed  point  you 
appeal  to  the  judicial  tribunal,  which  steps  in 
and  decides  for  you,  and  that  decision  is  then 
binding  on  every  good  citizen.  It  is  the  law  of 
the  land  just  as  much  with  Mr.  Lincoln  against 
it  as  for  it.  And  yet  he  says  if  that  decision  is 
binding  he  is  a  perjured  man  if  he  does  not  vote 
for  a  slave  code  in  the  different  Territories  of 
this  Union.  Well,  if  you  [turning  to  Mr.  Lin 
coln]  are  not  going  to  resist  the  decision,  if  you 
obey  it,  and  do  not  intend  to  array  mob  law 
against  the  constituted  authorities,  then  accord 
ing  to  your  own  statement,  you  will  be  a  per 
jured  man  if  you  do  not  vote  to  establish  slavery 
in  these  Territories.  My  doctrine  is,  that  even 
taking  Mr.  Lincoln's  view  that  the  decision 
recognizes  the  right  of  a  man  to  carry  his  slaves 
into  the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  if  he 
pleases,  yet  after  he  gets  there  he  needs  affirma 
tive  law  to  make  that  right  of  any  value.  The 
same  doctrine  not  only  applies  to  slave  prop 
erty,  but  all  other  kinds  of  property.  Chief 
Justice  Taney  places  it  upon  the  ground  that 
slave  property  is  on  an  equal  footing  with  other 
property.  Suppose  one  of  your  merchants 
should  move  to  Kansas  and  open  a  liquor-store; 
he  has  a  right  to  take  groceries  and  liquors  there, 
but  the  mode  of  selling  them,  and  the  circum- 


1858]        Rejoinder  at   Jonesboro  87 

stances  under  which  they  shall  be  sold,  and  all 
the  remedies,  must  be  prescribed  by  local  legis 
lation,  and  if  that  is  unfriendly  it  will  drive  him 
out  just  as  effectually  as  if  there  was  a  constitu 
tional  provision  against  the  sale  of  liquor.  So 
the  absence  of  local  legislation  to  encourage  and 
support  slave  property  in  a  Territory  excludes 
it  practically  just  as  effectually  as  if  there  was 
a  positive  constitutional  provision  against  it. 
Hence  I  assert  that  under  the  Dred  Scott  de 
cision  you  cannot  maintain  slavery  a  day  in  a 
Territory  where  there  is  an  unwilling  people 
and  unfriendly  legislation.  If  the  people  are 
opposed  to  it,  our  right  is  a  barren,  worthless, 
useless  right;  and  if  they  are  for  it,  they  will 
support  and  encourage  it.  We  come  right  back, 
therefore,  to  the  practical  question,  if  the  people 
of  a  Territory  want  slavery  they  will  have  it, 
and  if  they  do  not  want  it  you  cannot  force  it 
on  them.  And  this  is  the  practical  question, 
the  great  principle,  upon  which  our  institutions 
rest. 

I  am  willing  to  take  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  as  it  was  pronounced  by  that 
august  tribunal,  without  stopping  to  inquire 
whether  I  would  have  decided  that  way  or  not 
I  have  had  many  a  decision  made  against  me 
on  questions  of  law  which  I  did  not  like,  but  I 
was  bound  by  them  just  as  much  as  if  I  had  had 


88  Abraham   Lincoln         [Sept.  18 

a  hand  in  making  them,  and  approved  them. 
Did  you  ever  see  a  lawyer  or  a  client  lose  his 
case  that  he  approved  the  decision  of  the  court? 
They  always  think  the  decision  unjust  when  it 
is  given  against  them.  In  a  government  of  laws 
like  ours  we  must  sustain  the  Constitution  as 
our  fathers  made  it,  and  maintain  the  rights  of 
the  States  as  they  are  guaranteed  under  the  Con 
stitution,  and  then  we  will  have  peace  and  har 
mony  between  the  different  States  and  sections 
of  this  glorious  Union. 

FRAGMENT:  NOTES  FOR  SPEECHES,  [September 
16?]  1858 

I  believe  the  declaration  that  "all  men  are 
created  equal"  is  the  great  fundamental  princi 
ple  upon  which  our  free  institutions  rest.  That 
negro  slavery  is  violative  of  that  principle;  but 
that  by  our  form  of  government  that  principle 
has  not  been  made  one  of  legal  obligation.  That 
by  our  form  of  government  the  States  which 
have  slavery  are  to  retain  or  disuse  it,  at  their 
own  pleasure;  and  that  all  others — individuals, 
free  States,  and  National  Government — are  con 
stitutionally  bound  to  leave  them  alone  about  it. 
That  our  government  was  thus  framed  because 
of  the  necessity  springing  from  the  actual  pres 
ence  of  slavery  when  it  was  formed. 


1858]         Speech  at  Charleston 


FOURTH  JOINT  DEBATE  AT  CHARLESTON,  ILLI 
NOIS,  September  18,  1858 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Opening  Speech. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  It  will 
be  very  difficult  for  an  audience  so  large 
as  this  to  hear  distinctly  what  a  speaker 
says,  and  consequently  it  is  important  that  as 
profound  silence  be  preserved  as  possible. 

While  I  was  at  the  hotel  to-day,  an  elderly 
gentleman  called  upon  me  to  know  whether  I 
was  really  in  favor  of  producing  a  perfect  equal 
ity  between  the  negroes  and  white  people. 
While  I  had  not  proposed  to  myself  on  this  oc 
casion  to  say  much  on  that  subject,  yet  as  the 
question  was  asked  me  I  thought  I  would  oc 
cupy  perhaps  five  minutes  in  saying  something 
in  regard  to  it.  I  will  say  then  that  I  am  not, 
nor  ever  have  been,  in  favor  of  bringing  about 
in  any  way  the  social  and  political  equality  of 
the  white  and  black  races — that  I  am  not,  nor 
ever  have  been,  in  favor  of  making  voters  or 
jurors  of  negroes,  nor  of  qualifying  them  to  hold 
office,  nor  to  intermarry  with  white  people;  and 
I  will  say  in  addition  to  this  that  there  is  a  phys 
ical  difference  between  the  white  and  black 


90  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

races  which  I  believe  will  forever  forbid  the 
two  races  living  together  on  terms  of  social  and 
political  equality.  And  inasmuch  as  they  can 
not  so  live,  while  they  do  remain  together  there 
must  be  the  position  of  superior  and  inferior, 
and  I  as  much  as  any  other  man  am  in  favor  of 
having  the  superior  position  assigned  to  the 
white  race.  I  say  upon  this  occasion  I  do  not 
perceive  that  because  the  white  man  is  to  have 
the  superior  position  the  negro  should  be  denied 
everything.  I  do  not  understand  that  because 
I  do  not  want  a  negro  woman  for  a  slave  I  must 
necessarily  want  her  for  a  wife.  My  under 
standing  is  that  I  can  just  let  her  alone.  I  am 
now  in  my  fiftieth  year,  and  I  certainly  never 
have  had  a  black  woman  for  either  a  slave  or  a 
wife.  So  it  seems  to  me  quite  possible  for  us  to 
get  along  without  making  either  slaves  or  wives 
of  negroes.  I  will  add  to  this  that  I  have  never 
seen,  to  my  knowledge,  a  man,  woman,  or  child 
who  was  in  favor  of  producing  a  perfect  equali 
ty,  social  and  political,  between  negroes  and 
white  men.  I  recollect  of  but  one  distinguished 
instance  that  I  ever  heard  of  so  frequently  as  to 
be  entirely  satisfied  of  its  correctness,  and  that  is 
the  case  of  Judge  Douglas's  old  friend  Colonel 
Richard  M.  Johnson.  I  will  also  add  to  the  re 
marks  I  have  made  (for  I  am  not  going  to  enter 
at  large  upon  this  subject),  that  I  have  never 


1858]         Speech  at   Charleston  91 

had  the  least  apprehension  that  I  or  my  friends 
would  marry  negroes  if  there  was  no  law  to  keep 
them  from  it;  but  as  Judge  Douglas  and  his 
friends  seem  to  be  in  great  apprehension  that 
they  might,  if  there  was  no  law  to  keep  them 
from  it,  I  give  him  the  most  solemn  pledge  that 
I  will  to  the  very  last  stand  by  the  law  of  this 
State,  which  forbids  the  marrying  of  white  peo 
ple  with  negroes.  I  will  add  one  further  word, 
which  is  this :  that  I  do  not  understand  that  there 
is  any  place  where  an  alteration  of  the  social  and 
political  relations  of  the  negro  and  the  white 
man  can  be  made  except  in  the  State  legislature 
— not  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States ;  and 
as  I  do  not  really  apprehend  the  approach  of 
any  such  thing  myself,  and  as  Judge  Douglas 
seems  to  be  in  constant  horror  that  some  such 
danger  is  rapidly  approaching,  I  propose,  as  the 
best  means  to  prevent  it,  that  the  judge  be  kept 
at  home  and  placed  in  the  State  legislature  to 
fight  the  measure.  I  do  not  propose  dwelling 
longer  at  this  time  on  the  subject. 

When  Judge  Trumbull,  our  other  senator  in 
Congress,  returned  to  Illinois  in  the  month  of 
August,  he  made  a  speech  at  Chicago,  in  which 
he  made  what  may  be  called  a  charge  against 
Judge  Douglas,  which  I  understand  proved  to 
be  very  offensive  to  him.  The  judge  was  at 
that  time  out  upon  one  of  his  speaking  tours 


92  Abraham  Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

through  the  country,  and  when  the  news  of  it 
reached  him,  as  I  am  informed,  he  denounced 
Judge  Trumbull  in  rather  harsh  terms  for  hav 
ing  said  what  he  did  in  regard  to  the  matter.  I 
was  traveling  at  that  time,  and  speaking  at  the 
same  places  with  Judge  Douglas  on  subsequent 
days,  and  when  I  heard  of  what  Judge  Trum 
bull  had  said  of  Douglas,  and  what  Douglas 
had  said  back  again,  I  felt  that  I  was  in  a  posi 
tion  where  I  could  not  remain  entirely  silent 
in  regard  to  the  matter.  Consequently,  upon 
two  or  three  occasions  I  alluded  to  it,  and  al 
luded  to  it  in  no  other  wise  than  to  say  that  in 
regard  to  the  charge  brought  by  Trumbull 
against  Douglas,  I  personally  knew  nothing,  and 
sought  to  say  nothing  about  it — that  I  did  per 
sonally  know  Judge  Trumbull — that  I  believed 
him  to  be  a  man  of  veracity — that  I  believed 
him  to  be  a  man  of  capacity  sufficient  to  know 
very  well  whether  an  assertion  he  was  making, 
as  a  conclusion  drawn  from  a  set  of  facts,  was 
true  or  false;  and  as  a  conclusion  of  my  own 
from  that,  I  stated  it  as  my  belief,  if  Trumbull 
should  ever  be  called  upon,  he  would  prove 
everything  he  had  said.  I  said  this  upon  two 
or  three  occasions.  Upon  a  subsequent  occa 
sion,  Judge  Trumbull  spoke  again  before  an 
audience  at  Alton,  and  upon  that  occasion  not 
only  repeated  his  charge  against  Douglas,  but 


1858]         Speech  at   Charleston  93 

arrayed  the  evidence  he  relied  upon  to  sub 
stantiate  it.  This  speech  was  published  at 
length,  and  subsequently  at  Jacksonville  Judge 
Douglas  alluded  to  the  matter.  In  the  course 
of  his  speech,  and  near  the  close  of  it,  he  stated 
in  regard  to  myself  what  I  will  now  read: 
"Judge  Douglas  proceeded  to  remark  that  he 
should  not  hereafter  occupy  his  time  in  refuting 
such  charges  made  by  Trumbull,  but  that  Lin 
coln  having  indorsed  the  character  of  Trum 
bull  for  veracity,  he  should  hold  him  (Lincoln) 
responsible  for  the  slanders."  I  have  done  sim 
ply  what  I  have  told  you,  to  subject  me  to  this 
invitation  to  notice  the  charge.  I  now  wish  to 
say  that  it  had  not  originally  been  my  purpose 
to  discuss  that  matter  at  all.  But  inasmuch  as 
it  seems  to  be  the  wish  of  Judge  Douglas  to  hold 
me  responsible  for  it,  then  for  once  in  my  life  I 
will  play  General  Jackson,  and  to  the  just  ex 
tent  I  take  the  responsibility. 

I  wish  to  say  at  the  beginning  that  I  will  hand 
to  the  reporters  that  portion  of  Judge  T  rum- 
bull's  Alton  speech  which  was  devoted  to  this 
matter,  and  also  that  portion  of  Judge  Doug 
las's  speech  made  at  Jacksonville  in  answer  to 
it  I  shall  thereby  furnish  the  readers  of  this 
debate  with  the  complete  discussion  between 
Trumbull  and  Douglas.  I  cannot  now  read 
them,  for  the  reason  that  it  would  take  half  of 


94  Abraham   Lincoln         [Sept.  18 

my  first  hour  to  do  so.  I  can  only  make  some 
comments  upon  them.  Trumbuirs  charge  is  in 
the  following  words:  "Now,  the  charge  is,  that 
there  was  a  plot  entered  into  to  have  a  constitu 
tion  formed  in  Kansas,  and  put  in  force,  without 
giving  the  people  an  opportunity  to  vote  upon 
it,  and  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  in  the  plot."  I 
will  state,  without  quoting  further,  for  all  will 
have  an  opportunity  of  reading  it  hereafter,  that 
Judge  Trumbull  brings  forward  what  he  re 
gards  as  sufficient  evidence  to  substantiate  this 
charge. 

It  will  be  perceived  Judge  Trumbull  shows 
that  Senator  Bigler,  upon  the  floor  of  the  Sen 
ate,  had  declared  there  had  been  a  conference 
among  the  senators,  in  which  conference  it  was 
determined  to  have  an  Enabling  Act  passed  for 
the  people  of  Kansas  to  form  a  constitution  un 
der;  and  in  this  conference  it  was  agreed  among 
them  that  it  was  best  not  to  have  a  provision  for 
submitting  the  constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  peo 
ple  after  it  should  be  formed.  He  then  brings 
forward  evidence  to  show,  and  showing,  as  he 
deemed,  that  Judge  Douglas  reported  the  bill 
back  to  the  Senate  with  that  clause  stricken  out. 
He  then  shows  that  there  was  a  new  clause  in 
serted  in  the  bill,  which  would  in  its  nature 
prevent  a  reference  of  the  constitution  back  for 
a  vote  of  the  people — if,  indeed,  upon  a  mere 


1858]        Speech  at   Charleston  95 

silence  in  the  law,  it  could  be  assumed  that  they 
had  the  right  to  vote  upon  it.  These  are  the 
general  statements  that  he  has  made. 

I  propose  to  examine  the  points  in  Judge 
Douglas's  speech,  in  which  he  attempts  to  an 
swer  that  speech  of  Judge  Trumbuirs.  When 
you  come  to  examine  Judge  Douglas's  speech, 
you  will  find  that  the  first  point  he  makes  is: 
"Suppose  it  were  true  that  there  was  such  a 
change  in  the  bill,  and  that  I  struck  it  out — is 
that  a  proof  of  a  plot  to  force  a  constitution 
upon  them  against  their  will?"  His  striking  out 
such  a  provision,  if  there  was  such  a  one  in  the 
bill,  he  argues,  does  not  establish  the  proof  that 
it  was  stricken  out  for  the  purpose  of  robbing 
the  people  of  that  right.  I  would  say,  in  the 
first  place,  that  that  would  be  a  most  manifest 
reason  for  it.  It  is  true,  as  Judge  Douglas 
states,  that  many  territorial  bills  have  passed 
without  having  such  a  provision  in  them.  I  be 
lieve  it  is  true,  though  I  am  not  certain,  that  in 
some  instances  constitutions  framed  under  such 
bills  have  been  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people, 
with  the  law  silent  upon  the  subject;  but  it  does 
not  appear  that  they  once  had  their  enabling 
acts  framed  with  an  express  provision  for  sub 
mitting  the  constitution  to  be  framed  to  a  vote 
of  the  people,  and  then  that  it  was  stricken  out 
when  Congress  did  not  mean  to  alter  the  effect 


96  Abraham  Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

of  the  law.     That  there  have  been  bills  which 
never  had  the  provision  in,  I  do  not  question; 
but  when  was  that  provision  taken  out  of  one 
that  it  was  in?     More  especially  does  this  evi 
dence  tend  to  prove  the  proposition  that  Trum- 
bull  advanced,  when  we  remember  that  the  pro 
vision  was  stricken  out  of  the  bill  almost  simul 
taneously  with  the  time  that  Bigler  says  there 
was  a  conference  among  certain  senators,  and  in 
which  it  was  agreed  that  a  bill  should  be  passed 
leaving  that  out.     Judge  Douglas,  in  answering 
Trumbull,  omits  to  attend  to  the  testimony  of 
Bigler,  that  there  was  a  meeting  in  which  it  was 
agreed  they  should  so  frame  the  bill  that  there 
should  be  no  submission  of  the  constitution  to  a 
vote  of  the  people.     The  judge  does  not  notice 
this  part  of  it.     If  you  take  this  as  one  piece  of 
evidence,  and  then  ascertain  that  simultaneously 
Judge  Douglas  struck  out  a  provision  that  did 
not  require  it  to  be  submitted,  and  put  the  two 
together,  I  think  it  will  make  a  pretty  fair  show 
of  proof  that  Judge  Douglas  did,  as  Trumbull 
says,  enter  into  a  plot  to  put  in  force  a  consti 
tution  for  Kansas  without  giving  the  people  any 
opportunity  of  voting  upon  it. 

But  I  must  hurry  on.  The  next  proposition 
that  Judge  Douglas  puts  is  this:  "But  upon  ex 
amination  it  turns  out  that  the  Toombs  bill  never 
did  contain  a  clause  requiring  the  constitution 


1858]         Speech  at   Charleston  97 

to  be  submitted."  This  is  a  mere  question  of 
fact,  and  can  be  determined  by  evidence.  I  only 
want  to  ask  this  question — why  did  not  Judge 
Douglas  say  that  these  words  were  not  stricken 
out  of  the  Toombs  bill,  or  this  bill  from  which 
it  is  alleged  the  provision  was  stricken  out — a 
bill  which  goes  by  the  name  of  Toombs,  because 
he  originally  brought  it  forward?  I  ask  why, 
if  the  judge  wanted  to  make  a  direct  issue  with 
Trumbull,  did  he  not  take  the  exact  proposition 
Trumbull  made  in  his  speech,  and  say  it  was 
not  stricken  out?  Trumbull  has  given  the  exact 
words  that  he  says  were  in  the  Toombs  bill,  and 
he  alleges  that  when  the  bill  came  back,  they 
were  stricken  out.  Judge  Douglas  does  not  say 
that  the  words  which  Trumbull  says  were  strick 
en  out,  were  not  stricken  out,  but  he  says  there 
was  no  provision  in  the  Toombs  bill  to  submit 
the  constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  We  see 
at  once  that  he  is  merely  making  an  issue  upon 
the  meaning  of  the  words.  He  has  not  under 
taken  to  say  that  Trumbull  tells  a  lie  about  these 
words  being  stricken  out;  but  he  is  really,  when 
pushed  up  to  it,  only  taking  an  issue  upon  the 
meaning  of  the  words.  Now,  then,  if  there  be 
any  issue  upon  the  meaning  of  the  words,  or  if 
there  be  upon  the  question  of  fact  as  to  whether 
these  words  were  stricken  out,  I  have  before  me 
what  I  suppose  to  be  a  genuine  copy  of  the 


9$  Abraham  Lincoln         [Sept.  18 

Toombs  bill,  in  which  it  can  be  shown  that  the 
words  Trumbull  says  were  in  it,  were,  in  fact, 
originally  there.  If  there  be  any  dispute  upon 
the  fact,  I  have  got  the  documents  here  to  show 
they  were  there.  If  there  be  any  controversy 
upon  the  sense  of  the  words — whether  these 
words  which  were  stricken  out  really  constituted 
a  provision  for  submitting  the  matter  to  a  vote 
of  the  people,  as  that  is  a  matter  of  argument,  I 
think  I  may  as  well  use  TrumbulPs  own  argu 
ment.  He  says  that  the  proposition  is  in  these 
words : 

That  the  following  propositions  be,  and  the  same 
are  hereby,  offered  to  the  said  convention  of  the  peo 
ple  of  Kansas,  when  formed,  for  their  free  acceptance 
or  rejection;  which,  if  accepted  by  the  convention 
and  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election  for  the  adop 
tion  of  the  constitution,  shall  be  obligatory  upon  the 
United  States  and  the  said  State  of  Kansas. 

Now,  Trumbull  alleges  that  these  last  words 
were  stricken  out  of  the  bill  when  it  came  back, 
and  he  said  this  was  a  provision  for  submitting 
the  constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  and  his 
argument  is  this:  "Would  it  have  been  possible 
to  ratify  the  land  propositions  at  the  election  for 
the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  unless  such  an 
election  was  to  be  held?"  That  is  Trumbull's 
argument.  Now,  Judge  Douglas  does  not  meet 


1858]        Speech   at   Charleston  99 

the  charge  at  all,  but  stands  up  and  says  there 
was  no  such  proposition  in  that  bill  for  sub 
mitting  the  constitution  to  be  framed  to  a  vote 
of  the  people.  Trumbull  admits  that  the  lan 
guage  is  not  a  direct  provision  for  submitting  it, 
but  it  is  a  provision  necessarily  implied  from 
another  provision.  He  asks  you  how  it  is  pos 
sible  to  ratify  the  land  proposition  at  the  election 
for  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  if  there  was 
no  election  to  be  held  for  the  adoption  of  the 
constitution.  And  he  goes  on  to  show  that  it  is 
not  any  less  a  law  because  the  provision  is  put  in 
that  indirect  shape  than  it  would  be  if  it  was 
put  directly.  But  I  presume  I  have  said 
enough  to  draw  attention  to  this  point,  and  I 
pass  it  by  also. 

Another  one  of  the  points  that  Judge  Doug 
las  makes  upon  Trumbull,  and  at  very  great 
length,  is  that  Trumbull,  while  the  bill  was 
pending,  said  in  a  speech  in  the  Senate  that  he 
supposed  the  constitution  to  be  made  would 
have  to  be  submitted  to  the  people.  He  asks, 
if  Trumbull  thought  so  then,  what  ground  is 
there  for  anybody  thinking  otherwise  now? 
Fellow-citizens,  this  much  may  be  said  in  re 
ply:  That  bill  had  been  in  the  hands  of  a  party 
to  which  Trumbull  did  not  belong.  It  had 
been  in  the  hands  of  the  committee  at  the  head 
of  which  Judge  Douglas  stood.  Trumbull  per- 


ioo  Abraham   Lincoln         [Sept.  18 

haps  had  a  printed  copy  of  the  original  Toombs 
bill.  I  have  not  the  evidence  on  that  point,  ex 
cept  a  sort  of  inference  I  draw  from  the  general 
course  of  business  there.  What  alterations,  or 
what  provisions  in  the  way  of  altering,  were 
going  on  in  committee,  Trumbull  had  no  means 
of  knowing,  until  the  altered  bill  was  reported 
back.  Soon  afterward,  when  it  was  reported 
back,  there  was  a  discussion  over  it,  and  per 
haps  Trumbull  in  reading  it  hastily  in  the 
altered  form  did  not  perceive  all  the  bearings 
of  the  alterations.  He  was  hastily  borne  into 
the  debate,  and  it  does  not  follow  that  because 
there  was  something  in  it  Trumbull  did  not 
perceive,  that  something  did  not  exist.  More 
than  this,  is  it  true  that  what  Trumbull  did  can 
have  any  effect  on  what  Douglas  did?  Sup 
pose  Trumbull  had  been  in  the  plot  with  these 
other  men,  would  that  let  Douglas  out  of  it? 
Would  it  exonerate  Douglas  that  Trumbull 
did  n't  then  perceive  he  was  in  the  plot?  He 
also  asks  the  question :  Why  did  n't  Trumbull 
propose  to  amend  the  bill  if  he  thought  it 
needed  any  amendment?  Why,  I  believe  that 
everything  Judge  Trumbull  had  proposed,  par 
ticularly  in  connection  with  this  question  of 
Kansas  and  Nebraska,  since  he  had  been  on  the 
floor  of  the  Senate,  had  been  promptly  voted 
down  by  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends.  He 


1858]        Speech   at   Charleston  101 

had  no  promise  that  an  amendment  offered  by 
him  to  anything  on  this  subject  would  receive 
the  slightest  consideration.  Judge  Trumbull 
did  bring  the  notice  of  the  Senate  at  that  time 
to  the  fact  that  there  was  no  provision  for  sub 
mitting  the  constitution  about  to  be  made  for 
the  people  of  Kansas,  to  a  vote  of  the  people. 
I  believe  I  may  venture  to  say  that  Judge  Doug 
las  made  some  reply  to  this  speech  of  Judge 
Trumbull's,  but  he  never  noticed  that  part  of 
it  at  all.  And  so  the  thing  passed  by.  I  think, 
then,  the  fact  that  Judge  Trumbull  offered  no 
amendment,  does  not  throw  much  blame  upon 
him;  and  if  it  did,  it  does  not  reach  the  ques 
tion  of  fact  as  to  what  Judge  Douglas  was 
doing.  I  repeat  that  if  Trumbull  had  himself 
been  in  the  plot,  it  would  not  at  all  relieve  the 
others  who  were  in  it  from  blame.  If  I  should 
be  indicted  for  murder,  and  upon  the  trial  it 
should  be  discovered  that  I  had  been  impli 
cated  in  that  murder,  but  that  the  prosecuting 
witness  was  guilty  too,,  that  would  not  at  all 
touch  the  question  of  my  crime.  It  would  be 
no  relief  to  my  neck  that  they  discovered  this 
other  man  who  charged  the  crime  upon  me  to 
be  guilty  too. 

Another  one  of  the  points  Judge  Douglas 
makes  upon  Judge  Trumbull  is  that  when  he 
spoke  in  Chicago  he  made  his  charge  to  rest 


io2  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

upon  the  fact  that  the  bill  had  the  provision 
in  it  for  submitting  the  constitution  to  a  vote 
of  the  people,  when  it  went  into  his  (Judge 
Douglas's)  hands,  that  it  was  missing  when  he 
reported  it  to  the  Senate,  and  that  in  a  public 
speech  he  had  subsequently  said  the  alteration 
in  the  bill  was  made  while  it  was  in  committee, 
and  that  they  were  made  in  consultation  be 
tween  him  (Judge  Douglas)  and  Toombs. 
And  Judge  Douglas  goes  on  to  comment  upon 
the  fact  of  Trumbull's  adducing  in  his  Alton 
speech  the  proposition  that  the  bill  not  only 
came  back  with  that  proposition  stricken  out, 
but  with  another  clause  and  another  provision 
in  it  saying  that  "until  the  complete  execution 
of  this  act  there  shall  be  no  election  in  said  Ter 
ritory,"  which  Trumbull  argued  was  not  only 
taking  the  provision  for  submitting  to  a  vote 
of  the  people  out  of  the  bill,  but  was  adding  an 
affirmative  one,  in  that  it  prevented  the  people 
from  exercising  the  right  under  a  bill  that  was 
merely  silent  on  the  question.  Now  in  regard 
to  what  he  says,  that  Trumbull  shifts  the  issue 
—that  he  shifts  his  ground — and  I  believe  he 
uses  the  term  that  "it  being  proven  false,  he  has 
changed  ground," — I  call  upon  all  of  you  when 
you  come  to  examine  that  portion  of  Trumbuirs 
speech  (for  it  will  make  a  part  of  mine),  to 
examine  whether  Trumbull  has  shifted  his 


1858]        Speech   at   Charleston  103 

ground  or  not.  I  say  he  did  not  shift  his 
ground,  but  that  he  brought  forward  his  origi 
nal  charge,  and  the  evidence  to  sustain  it  yet 
more  fully,  but  precisely  as  he  originally  made 
it.  Then,  in  addition  thereto,  he  brought  in 
a  new  piece  of  evidence.  He  shifted  no  ground. 
He  brought  no  new  piece  of  evidence  inconsis 
tent  with  his  former  testimony,  but  he  brought 
a  new  piece  tending,  as  he  thought,  and  as  I 
think,  to  prove  his  proposition.  To  illustrate: 
A  man  brings  an  accusation  against  another,  and 
on  trial  the  man  making  the  charge  introduces 
A  and  B  to  prove  the  accusation.  At  a  second 
trial  he  introduces  the  same  witnesses,  who  tell 
the  same  story  as  before,  and  a  third  witness 
who  tells  the  same  thing,  and  in  addition  gives 
further  testimony  corroborative  of  the  charge. 
So  with  Trumbull.  There  was  no  shifting  of 
ground,  nor  inconsistency  of  testimony  between 
the  new  piece  of  evidence  and  what  he  origi 
nally  introduced. 

But  Judge  Douglas  says  that  he  himself 
moved  to  strike  out  that  last  provision  of  the 
bill,  and  that  on  his  motion  it  was  stricken  out 
and  a  substitute  inserted.  That  I  presume  is 
the  truth.  I  presume  it  is  true  that  that  last 
proposition  was  stricken  out  by  Judge  Douglas. 
Trumbull  has  not  said  it  was  not.  Trumbull 
has  himself  said  that  it  was  so  stricken  out.  He 


Abraham   Lincoln         [Sept.  18 

says:  "I  am  speaking  of  the  bill  as  Judge 
Douglas  reported  it  back.  It  was  amended 
somewhat  in  the  Senate  before  it  passed,  but  I 
am  speaking  of  it  as  he  brought  it  back."  Now, 
when  Judge  Douglas  parades  the  fact  that  the 
provision  was  stricken  out  of  the  bill  when  it 
came  back,  he  asserts  nothing  contrary  to  what 
Trumbull  alleges.  Trumbull  has  only  said 
that  he  originally  put  it  in — not  that  he  did  not 
strike  it  out.  Trumbull  says  it  was  not  in  the 
bill  when  it  went  to  the  committee.  When  it 
came  back  it  was  in,  and  Judge  Douglas  said 
the  alterations  were  made  by  him  in  consulta 
tion  with  Toombs.  Trumbull  alleges  there 
fore,  as  his  conclusion,  that  Judge  Douglas  put 
it  in.  Then  if  Douglas  wants  to  contradict 
Trumbull  and  call  him  a  liar,  let  him  say  he 
did  not  put  it  in,  and  not  that  he  did  n't  take  it 
out  again.  It  is  said  that  a  bear  is  sometimes 
hard  enough  pushed  to  drop  a  cub,  and  so  I  pre 
sume  it  was  in  this  case.  I  presume  the  truth 
is  that  Douglas  put  it  in  and  afterward  took  it 
out.  That,  I  take  it,  is  the  truth  about  it. 
Judge  Trumbull  says  one  thing;  Douglas  says 
another  thing,  and  the  two  don't  contradict  one 
another  at  all.  The  question  is,  what  did  he 
put  it  in  for?  In  the  first  place,  what  did  he 
take  the  other  provision  out  of  the  bill  for? — 
the  provision  which  Trumbull  argued  was 


1858]         Speech   at   Charleston  105 

necessary  for  submitting  the  constitution  to  a 
vote  of  the  people?  What  did  he  take  that  out 
for?  and  having  taken  it  out,  what  did  he  put 
this  in  for?  I  say  that,  in  the  run  of  things,  it 
is  not  unlikely  forces  conspired  to  render  it 
vastly  expedient  for  Judge  Douglas  to  take  that 
latter  clause  out  again.  The  question  that 
Trumbull  has  made  is  that  Judge  Douglas  put 
it  in,  and  he  don't  meet  Trumbull  at  all  unless 
he  denies  that. 

In  the  clause  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech  upon 
this  subject  he  uses  this  language  toward  Judge 
Trumbull.  He  says:  "He  forges  his  evidence 
from  beginning  to  end,  and  by  falsifying  the 
record  he  endeavors  to  bolster  up  his  false 
charge."  Well,  that  is  a  pretty  serious  state 
ment.  Trumbull  forges  his  evidence  from  be 
ginning  to  end.  Now  upon  my  own  authority 
I  say  that  it  is  not  true.  What  is  a  forgery? 
Consider  the  evidence  that  Trumbull  has 
brought  forward.  When  you  come  to  read  the 
speech,  as  you  will  be  able  to,  examine  whether 
the  evidence  is  a  forgery  from  beginning  to  end. 
He  had  the  bill  or  document  in  his  hand  like 
that  [holding  up  a  paper].  He  says  that  is  a 
copy  of  the  Toombs  bill — the  amendment  of 
fered  by  Toombs.  He  says  that  is  a  copy  of 
the  bill  as  it  was  introduced  and  went  into 
Judge  Douglas's  hands.  Now,  does  Judge 


io6  Abraham   Lincoln         [Sept.  18 

Douglas  say  that  is  a  forgery?  That  is  one 
thing  Trumbull  brought  forward.  Judge 
Douglas  says  he  forged  it  from  beginning  to 
end!  That  is  the  "beginning,"  we  will  say. 
Does  Douglas  say  that  is  a  forgery?  Let  him 
say  it  to-day,  and  we  will  have  a  subsequent  ex 
amination  upon  this  subject.  Trumbull  then 
holds  up  another  document  like  this,  and  says 
that  is  an  exact  copy  of  the  bill  as  it  came  back 
in  the  amended  form  out  of  Judge  Douglas's 
hands.  Does  Judge  Douglas  say  that  is  a  for- 
gery?  Does  he  say  it  in  his  sweeping  charge? 
Does  he  say  so  now?  If  he  does  not,  then  take 
this  Toombs  bill  and  the  bill  in  the  amended 
form,  and  it  only  needs  to  compare  them  to  see 
that  the  provision  is  in  the  one  and  not  in  the 
other;  it  leaves  the  inference  inevitable  that  it 
was  taken  out. 

But  while  I  am  dealing  with  this  question, 
let  us  see  what  Trumbuirs  other  evidence  is. 
One  other  piece  of  evidence  I  will  read.  Trum 
bull  says  there  are  in  this  original  Toombs  bill 
these  words:  "That  the  following  propositions 
be,  and  the  same  are  hereby,  offered  to  the  said 
convention  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  when 
formed,  for  their  free  acceptance  or  rejection; 
which,  if  accepted  by  the  convention  and  rati 
fied  by  the  people  at  the  election  for  the  adop 
tion  of  the  constitution,  shall  be  obligatory  upon 


1858]         Speech  at  Charleston  107 

the  United  States  and  the  said  State  of  Kansas." 
Now,  if  it  is  said  that  this  is  a  forgery,  we  will 
open  the  paper  here  and  see  whether  it  is  or  not. 
Again,  Trumbull  says,  as  he  goes  along,  that 
Mr.  Bigler  made  the  following  statement  in  his 
place  in  the  Senate,  December  9,  1857: 

I  was  present  when  that  subject  was  discussed  by 
senators  before  the  bill  was  introduced,  and  the  ques 
tion  was  raised  and  discussed,  whether  the  constitu 
tion,  when  formed,  should  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of 
the  people.  It  was  held  by  those  most  intelligent  on 
the  subject,  that  in  view  of  all  the  difficulties  sur 
rounding  that  Territory,  [and]  the  danger  of  any 
experiment  at  that  time  of  a  popular  vote,  it  would 
be  better  there  should  be  no  such  provision  in  the 
Toombs  bill;  and  it  was  my  understanding,  in  all  the 
intercourse  I  had,  that  the  convention  would  make  a 
constitution,  and  send  it  here  without  submitting  it 
to  the  popular  vote. 

Then  Trumbull  follows  on: 

In  speaking  of  this  meeting  again  on  the  2ist  De 
cember,  1857  [" Congressional  Globe,"  same  volume, 
page  113],  Senator  Bigler  said:  "Nothing  was  fur 
ther  from  my  mind  than  to  allude  to  any  social  or 
confidential  interview.  The  meeting  was  not  of  that 
character.  Indeed,  it  was  semi-official  and  called  to 
promote  the  public  good.  My  recollection  was  clear 
that  I  left  the  conference  under  the  impression  that 
it  had  been  deemed  best  to  adopt  measures  to  admit 


io8  Abraham  Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

Kansas  as  a  State  through  the  agency  of  one  popular 
election,  and  that  for  delegates  to  this  convention. 
This  impression  was  stronger  because  I  thought  the 
spirit  of  the  bill  infringed  upon  the  doctrine  of  non 
intervention,  to  which  I  had  great  aversion ;  but  with 
the  hope  of  accomplishing  a  great  good,  and  as  no 
movement  had  been  made  in  that  direction  in  the 
Territory,  I  waived  this  objection,  and  concluded  to 
support  the  measure.  I  have  a  few  items  of  testi 
mony  as  to  the  correctness  of  these  impressions,  and 
with  their  submission  I  shall  be  content.  I  have  be 
fore  me  the  bill  reported  by  the  senator  from  Illinois 
on  the  yth  of  March,  1856,  providing  for  the  admis 
sion  of  Kansas  as  a  State,  the  third  section  of  which 
reads  as  follows: 

"  'That  the  following  propositions  be,  and  the  same 
are  hereby,  offered  to  the  said  convention  of  the  peo 
ple  of  Kansas,  when  formed,  for  their  free  accept 
ance  or  rejection;  which,  if  accepted  by  the  convention 
and  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election  for  the  adop 
tion  of  the  constitution,  shall  be  obligatory  upon  the 
United  States  and  the  said  State  of  Kansas.5 

"The  bill  read  in  his  place  by  the  senator  from 
Georgia,  on  the  25th  of  June,  and  referred  to  the 
committee  on  Territories,  contained  the  same  section 
word  for  word.  Both  these  bills  were  under  consid 
eration  at  the  conference  referred  to;  but,  sir,  when 
the  senator  from  Illinois  reported  the  Toombs  bill 
to  the  Senate  with  amendments  the  next  morning,  it 
did  not  contain  that  portion  of  the  third  section  which 
indicated  to  the  convention  that  the  constitution 


1858]         Speech  at   Charleston  109 

should  be  approved  by  the  people.  The  words, 
'and  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election  for  the 
adoption  of  the  constitution,'  had  been  stricken  out." 

Now  these  things  Trumbull  says  were  stated 
by  Bigler  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate  on  certain 
days,  and  that  they  are  recorded  in  the  "Con 
gressional  Globe"  on  certain  pages.  Does 
Judge  Douglas  say  this  is  a  forgery?  Does  he 
say  there  is  no  such  thing  in  the  "Congressional 
Globe"?  What  does  he  mean  when  he  says 
Judge  Trumbull  forges  his  evidence  from  be- 
gining  to  end?  So  again  he  says,  in  another 
place,  that  Judge  Douglas,  in  his  speech  Decem 
ber  9,  1857  ["Congressional  Globe,"  Part  I, 
page  15],  stated: 

That  during  the  last  session  of  Congress,  I  [Mr. 
Douglas]  reported  a  bill  from  the  committee  on  Ter 
ritories,  to  authorize  the  people  of  Kansas  to  assem 
ble  and  form  a  constitution  for  themselves.  Subse 
quently  the  senator  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Toombs] 
brought  forward  a  substitute  for  my  bill,  which,  after 
being  modified  by  him  and  myself  in  consultation,  was 
passed  by  the  Senate. 

Now  Trumbull  says  this  is  a  quotation  from 
a  speech  of  Douglas,  and  is  recorded  in  the 
"Congressional  Globe."  Is  it  a  forgery?  Is  it 
there  or  not?  It  may  not  be  there,  but  I  want 
the  judge  to  take  these  pieces  of  evidence,  and 


no  Abraham   Lincoln         [Sept.  18 

distinctly  say  they  are  forgeries  if  he  dare  do 
it.  [A  voice:  "He  will."]  Well  sir,  you  had 
better  not  commit  him.  He  gives  other  quota 
tions — another  from  Judge  Douglas.  He  says : 

'1  I  will  ask  the  senator  to  show  me  an  intimation, 
from  any  one  member  of  the  Senate,  in  the  whole  de 
bate  on  the  Toombs  bill,  and  in  the  Union,  from  any 
quarter,  that  the  constitution  was  not  to  be  submitted 
to  the  public.  I  will  venture  to  say  that  on  all  sides 
of  the  chamber  it  was  so  understood  at  the  time.  If 
the  opponents  of  the  bill  had  understood  it  was  not, 
they  would  have  made  the  point  on  it;  and  if  they 
had  made  it,  we  should  certainly  have  yielded  to  it, 
and  put  in  the  clause.  That  is  a  discovery  made  since 
the  President  found  out  that  it  was  not  safe  to  take  it 
for  granted  that  that  would  be  done  which  ought  in 
fairness  to  have  been  done. 

Judge  Trumbull  says  Douglas  made  that 
speech,  and  it  is  recorded.  Does  Judge  Doug 
las  say  it  is  a  forgery,  and  was  not  true?  Trum 
bull  says  somewhere,  and  I  propose  to  skip  it, 
but  it  will  be  found  by  any  one  who  will  read 
this  debate,  that  he  did  distinctly  bring  it  to  the 
notice  of  those  who  were  engineering  the  bill, 
that  it  lacked  that  provision,  and  then  he  goes 
on  to  give  another  quotation  from  Judge  Doug 
las,  where  Judge  Trumbull  uses  this  language: 

Judge  Douglas,  however,  on  the  same  day  and  in 
the  same  debate,  probably  recollecting  or  being  re- 


1858]         Speech  at   Charleston  in 

minded  of  the  fact  that  I  had  objected  to  the  Toombs 
bill,  when  pending,  that  it  did  not  provide  for  a  sub 
mission  of  the  constitution  to  the  people,  made  an 
other  statement,  which  is  to  be  found  in  the  same 
volume  of  the  "Globe,"  page  22,  in  which  he  says: 

uThat  the  bill  was  silent  on  this  subject  was  true, 
and  my  attention  was  called  to  that  about  the  time 
it  was  passed;  and  I  took  the  fair  construction  to  be, 
that  powers  not  delegated  were  reserved,  and  that  of 
course  the  constitution  would  be  submitted  to  the 
people." 

Whether  this  statement  is  consistent  with  the  state 
ment  just  before  made,  that  had  the  point  been  made 
it  would  have  been  yielded  to,  or  that  it  was  a  new 
discovery,  you  will  determine. 

So  I  say.  I  do  not  know  whether  Judge 
Douglas  will  dispute  this,  and  yet  maintain  his 
position  that  TrumbulPs  evidence  "was  forged 
from  beginning  to  end."  I  will  remark  that  I 
have  not  got  these  "Congressional  Globes"  with 
me.  They  are  large  books  and  difficult  to  carry 
about,  and  if  Judge  Douglas  shall  say  that  on 
these  points  where  Trumbull  has  quoted  from 
them,  there  are  no  such  passages  there,  I  shall 
not  be  able  to  prove  they  are  there  upon  this 
occasion,  but  I  will  have  another  chance. 
Whenever  he  points  out  the  forgery  and  says, 
"I  declare  that  this  particular  thing  which 
Trumbull  has  uttered  is  not  to  be  found  where 


ii2  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

he  says  it  is,"  then  my  attention  will  be  drawn 
to  that,  and  I  will  arm  myself  for  the  contest — • 
stating  now  that  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt 
on  earth  that  I  will  find  every  quotation  just 
where  Trumbull  says  it  is.  Then  the  question 
is,  how  can  Douglas  call  that  a  forgery?  How 
can  he  make  out  that  it  is  a  forgery?  What  is 
a  forgery?  It  is  the  bringing  forward  some 
thing  in  writing  or  in  print  purporting  to  be 
of  certain  effect  when  it  is  altogether  untrue. 
If  you  come  forward  with  my  note  for  one  hun 
dred  dollars  when  I  have  never  given  such  a 
note,  there  is  a  forgery.  If  you  come  forward 
with  a  letter  purporting  to  be  written  by  me 
which  I  never  wrote,  there  is  another  forgery. 
If  you  produce  anything  in  writing  or  in  print 
saying  it  is  so  and  so,  the  document  not  being 
genuine,  a  forgery  has  been  committed.  How 
do  you  make  this  a  forgery  when  every  piece 
of  the  evidence  is  genuine?  If  Judge  Douglas 
does  say  these  documents  and  quotations  are 
false  and  forged,  he  has  a  full  right  to  do  so, 
but  until  he  does  it  specifically,  we  don't  know 
how  to  get  at  him.  If  he  does  say  they  are  false 
and  forged,  I  will  then  look  further  into  it,  and 
I  presume  I  can  procure  the  certificates  of  the 
proper  officers  that  they  are  genuine  copies.  I 
have  no  doubt  each  of  these  extracts  will  be 
found  exactly  where  Trumbull  says  it  is.  Then 


1858]         Speech  at  Charleston  113 

I  leave  it  to  you  if  Judge  Douglas,  in  making 
his  sweeping  charge  that  Judge  Trumbuirs  evi 
dence  is  forged  from  beginning  to  end,  at  all 
meets  the  case — if  that  is  the  way  to  get  at  the 
facts.  I  repeat  again,  if  he  will  point  out 
which  one  is  a  forgery,  I  will  carefully  examine 
it,  and  if  it  proves  that  any  one  of  them  is  really 
a  forgery,  it  will  not  be  me  who  will  hold  to 
it  any  longer.  I  have  always  wanted  to  deal 
with  every  one  I  meet  candidly  and  honestly. 
If  I  have  made  any  assertion  not  warranted  by 
facts,  and  it  is  pointed  out  to  me,  I  will  with 
draw  it  cheerfully.  But  I  do  not  choose  to  see 
Judge  Trumbull  calumniated,  and  the  evidence 
he  has  brought  forward  branded  in  general 
terms  "a  forgery  from  beginning  to  end."  This 
is  not  the  legal  way  of  meeting  a  charge,  and  I 
submit  to  all  intelligent  persons,  both  friends 
of  Judge  Douglas  and  of  myself,  whether  it  is. 
The  point  upon  Judge  Douglas  is  this.  The 
bill  that  went  into  his  hands  had  the  provision 
in  it  for  a  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the 
people;  and  I  say  its  language  amounts  to  an 
express  provision  for  a  submission,  and  that  he 
took  the  provision  out.  He  says  it  was  known 
that  the  bill  was  silent  in  this  particular;  but 
I  say,  Judge  Douglas,  it  was  not  silent  when 
you  got  it.  It  was  vocal  with  the  declaration 
when  you  got  it,  for  a  submission  of  the  consti- 


ii4  Abraham  Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

tution  to  the  people.  And  now,  my  direct 
question  to  Judge  Douglas  is  to  answer  why,  if 
he  deemed  the  bill  silent  on  this  point,  he  found 
it  necessary  to  strike  out  those  particular  harm 
less  words.  If  he  had  found  the  bill  silent  and 
without  this  provision,  he  might  say  what  he 
does  now.  If  he  supposes  it  was  implied  that 
the  constitution  would  be  submitted  to  a  vote 
of  the  people,  how  could  these  two  lines  so 
encumber  the  statute  as  to  make  it  necessary  to 
strike  them  out?  How  could  he  infer  that  a 
submission  was  still  implied,  after  its  express 
provision  had  been  stricken  from  the  bill?  I 
find  the  bill  vocal  with  the  provision,  while  he 
silenced  it.  He  took  it  out,  and  although  he 
took  out  the  other  provision  preventing  a  sub 
mission  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  I  ask,  why  did 
you  first  put  it  in?  I  ask  him  whether  he  took 
the  original  provision  out,  which  Trumbull 
alleges  was  in  the  bill?  If  he  admits  that  he 
did  take  it,  I  ask  him  what  he  did  it  for?  It 
looks  to  us  as  if  he  had  altered  the  bill.  If  it 
looks  differently  to  him — if  he  has  a  different 
reason  for  his  action  from  the  one  we  assign  him 
— he  can  tell  it.  I  insist  upon  knowing  why  he 
made  the  bill  silent  upon  that  point  when  it  was 
vocal  before  he  put  his  hands  upon  it. 

I  was  told,  before  my  last  paragraph,  that  my 
time  was  within  three  minutes  of  being  out. 


1858]         Speech  at   Charleston  115 

I    presume    it    is    expired    now.     I    therefore 
close. 

Extract  from  Mr,  TrumbulVs  Speech  made  at  Alton, 
referred  to  by  Mr.  Lincoln  in  his  opening  at 
Charleston. 

I  come  now  to  another  extract  from  a  speech  of 
Mr.  Douglas,  made  at  Beardstown,  and  reported  in 
the  "Missouri  Republican."  This  extract  has  refer 
ence  to  a  statement  made  by  me  at  Chicago,  wherein 
I  charged  that  an  agreement  had  been  entered  into 
by  the  very  persons  now  claiming  credit  for  opposing 
a  constitution  not  submitted  to  the  people,  to  have  a 
constitution  formed  and  put  in  force  without  giving 
the  people  of  Kansas  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon  it. 
Without  meeting  this  charge,  which  I  substantiated 
by  a  reference  to  the  record,  my  colleague  is  reported 
to  have  said : 

"For  when  this  charge  was  once  made  in  a  much 
milder  form  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  I  did 
brand  it  as  a  lie  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Trumbull,  and 
Mr.  Trumbull  sat  and  heard  it  thus  branded,  with 
out  daring  to  say  it  was  true.  I  tell  you  he  knew 
it  to  be  false  when  he  uttered  it  at  Chicago;  and  yet 
he  says  he  is  'going  to  cram  the  lie  down  his  throat 
until  he  should  cry  enough.'  The  miserable,  craven- 
hearted  wretch!  he  would  rather  have  both  ears  cut 
off  than  to  use  that  language  in  my  presence,  where  I 
could  call  him  to  account.  I  see  the  object  is  to  draw 
me  into  a  personal  controversy,  with  the  hope  thereby 
of  concealing  from  the  public  the  enormity  of  the 


n6  Abraham  Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

principles  to  which  they  are  committed.  I  shall  not 
allow  much  of  my  time  in  this  canvass  to  be  occupied 
by  these  personal  assaults.  I  have  none  to  make  on 
Mr.  Lincoln ;  I  have  none  to  make  on  Mr.  Trumbull ; 
I  have  none  to  make  on  any  other  political  opponent. 
If  I  cannot  stand  on  my  own  public  record,  on  my 
own  private  and  public  character  as  history  will  record 
it,  I  will  not  attempt  to  rise  by  traducing  the  charac 
ters  of  other  men.  I  will  not  make  a  blackguard  of 
myself  by  imitating  the  course  they  have  pursued 
against  me.  I  have  no  charges  to  make  against 
them." 

This  is  a  singular  statement,  taken  altogether. 
After  indulging  in  language  which  would  disgrace  a 
loafer  in  the  filthiest  purlieus  of  a  fish-market,  he 
winds  up  by  saying  that  he  will  not  make  a  black 
guard  of  himself,  that  he  has  no  charges  to  make 
against  me.  So  I  suppose  he  considers  that  to  say 
of  another  that  he  knew  a  thing  to  be  false  when  he 
uttered  it,  that  he  was  a  "miserable  craven-hearted 
wretch,"  does  not  amount  to  a  personal  assault,  and 
does  not  make  a  man  a  blackguard.  A  discriminat 
ing  public  will  judge  of  that  for  themselves;  but  as 
he  says  he  has  "no  charges  to  make  on  Mr.  Trum 
bull,"  I  suppose  politeness  requires  I  should  believe 
him.  At  the  risk  of  again  offending  this  mighty  man 
of  war,  and  losing  something  more  than  my  ears,  I 
shall  have  the  audacity  to  again  read  the  record  upon 
him,  and  prove  and  pin  upon  him,  so  that  he  cannot 
escape  it,  the  truth  of  every  word  I  uttered  at  Chi 
cago.  You,  fellow-citizens,  are  the  judges  to  deter- 


1858]         Speech  at  Charleston  117 

mine  whether  I  do  this.  My  colleague  says  he  is 
willing  to  stand  on  his  public  record.  By  that  he 
shall  be  tried,  and  if  he  had  been  able  to  discriminate 
between  the  exposure  of  a  public  act  by  the  record, 
and  a  personal  attack  upon  the  individual,  he  would 
have  discovered  that  there  was  nothing  personal  in 
my  Chicago  remarks,  unless  the  condemnation  of 
himself  by  his  own  public  record  is  personal,  and  then 
you  must  judge  who  is  most  to  blame  for  the  torture 
his  public  record  inflicts  upon  him,  he  for  making,  or 
I  for  reading  it  after  it  was  made.  As  an  individual 
I  care  very  little  about  Judge  Douglas  one  way  or 
the  other.  It  is  his  public  acts  with  which  I  have 
to  do,  and  if  they  condemn,  disgrace,  and  consign 
him  to  oblivion,  he  has  only  himself,  not  me,  to 
blame. 

Now,  the  charge  is  that  there  was  a  plot  entered 
into  to  have  a  constitution  formed  for  Kansas,  and 
put  in  force,  without  giving  the  people  an  opportunity 
to  pass  upon  it,  and  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  in  the 
plot.  This  is  as  susceptible  of  proof  by  the  record 
as  is  the  fact  that  the  State  of  Minnesota  was  ad 
mitted  into  the  Union  at  the  last  session  of  Con 
gress. 

On  the  25th  of  June,  1856,  a  bill  was  pending  in 
the  United  States  Senate  to  authorize  the  people  of 
Kansas  to  form  a  constitution  and  come  into  the 
Union.  On  that  day  Mr.  Toombs  offered  an  amend 
ment  which  he  intended  to  propose  to  the  bill,  which 
was  ordered  to  be  printed,  and,  with  the  original  bill 
and  other  amendments,  recommended  to  the  Com- 


ii8  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

mittee  on  Territories,  of  which  Mr.  Douglas  was 
chairman.  This  amendment  of  Mr.  Toombs,  printed 
by  order  of  the  Senate,  and  a  copy  of  which  I  have 
here  present,  provided  for  the  appointment  of  com 
missioners,  who  were  to  take  a  census  of  Kansas, 
divide  the  Territory  into  election  districts,  and  super 
intend  the  election  of  delegates  to  form  a  constitu 
tion,  and  contains  a  clause  in  the  i8th  section  which 
I  will  read  to  you,  requiring  the  constitution  which 
should  be  formed  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  for 
adoption.  It  reads  as  follows : 

"That  the  following  propositions  be,  and  the  same 
are  hereby,  offered  to  the  said  convention  of  the  peo 
ple  of  Kansas,  when  formed,  for  their  free  accept 
ance  or  rejection;  which,  if  accepted  by  the  convention 
and  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election  for  the  adop 
tion  of  the  constitution,  shall  be  obligatory  upon  the 
United  States,  and  upon  the  said  State  of  Kansas/* 
etc 

It  has  been  contended  by  some  of  the  newspaper 
press  that  this  section  did  not  require  the  constitution 
which  should  be  formed  to  be  submitted  to  the  people 
for  approval,  and  that  it  was  only  the  land  proposi 
tions  which  were  to  be  submitted.  You  will  observe 
the  language  is  that  the  propositions  are  to  be  "rati 
fied  by  the  people  at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of 
the  constitution."  Would  it  have  been  possible  to 
ratify  the  land  propositions J'at  the  election  for  the 
adoption  of  the  constitution,"  unless  such  an  election 
was  to  be  held? 


1858]         Speech  at  Charleston  119 

When  one  thing  is  required  by  a  contract  or  law  to 
be  done,  the  doing  of  which  is  made  dependent  upon, 
and  cannot  be  performed  without,  the  doing  of  some 
other  thing,  is  not  that  other  thing  just  as  much  re 
quired  by  the  contract  or  law  as  the  first?  It  matters 
not  in  what  part  of  the  act,  nor  in  what  phraseology, 
the  intention  of  the  legislature  is  expressed,  so  you 
can  clearly  ascertain  what  it  is;  and  whenever  that 
intention  is  ascertained  from  an  examination  of  the 
language  used,  such  intention  is  part  of  and  a  require 
ment  of  the  law.  Can  any  candid,  fair-minded  man 
read  the  section  I  have  quoted,  and  say  that  the  in 
tention  to  have  the  constitution  which  should  be 
formed  submitted  to  the  people  for  their  adoption  is 
not  clearly  expressed  ?  In  my  judgment  there  can  be 
no  controversy  among  honest  men  upon  a  proposition 
so  plain  as  this.  Mr.  Douglas  has  never  pretended 
to  deny,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  that  the  Toombs 
amendment,  as  originally  introduced,  did  require  a 
submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  people.  This 
amendment  of  Mr.  Toombs  was  referred  to  the  com 
mittee  of  which  Mr.  Douglas  was  chairman,  and  re 
ported  back  by  him  on  the  3Oth  of  June,  with  the 
words  "and  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election  for 
the  adoption  of  the  constitution"  stricken  out.  I 
have  here  a  copy  of  the  bill  as  reported  back  by  Mr. 
Douglas  to  substantiate  the  statement  I  make.  Va 
rious  other  alterations  were  also  made  in  the  bill  to 
which  I  shall  presently  have  occasion  to  call  attention. 
There  was  no  other  clause  in  the  original  Toombs  bill 
requiring  a  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  peo- 


120  Abraham  Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

pie  than  the  one  I  have  read,  and  there  was  no  clause 
whatever,  after  that  was  struck  out,  in  the  bill,  as 
reported  back  by  Judge  Douglas,  requiring  a  submis 
sion.  I  will  now  introduce  a  witness  whose  testi 
mony  cannot  be  impeached,  he  acknowledging  him 
self  to  have  been  one  of  the  conspirators,  and  privy 
to  the  fact  about  which  he  testifies. 

Senator  Bigler,  alluding  to  the  Toombs  bill,  as  it 
was  called,  and  which,  after  sundry  amendments, 
passed  the  Senate,  and  to  the  propriety  of  submitting 
the  constitution  which  should  be  formed  to  a  vote  of 
the  people,  made  the  following  statement  in  his  place 
in  the  Senate,  December  9,  1857.  I  read  from  Part 
I,  "Congressional  Globe"  of  last  session,  paragraph 
21 : 

"I  was  present  when  that  subject  was  discussed  by 
senators,  before  the  bill  was  introduced,  and  the  ques 
tion  was  raised  and  discussed  whether  the  constitution, 
when  formed,  should  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the 
people.  It  was  held  by  the  most  intelligent  on  the 
subject  that  in  view  of  all  the  difficulties  surrounding 
that  Territory,  [and]  the  danger  of  any  experiment 
at  that  time  of  a  popular  vote,  it  would  be  better  that 
there  should  be  no  such  provision  in  the  Toombs  bill ; 
and  it  is  my  understanding,  in  all  the  intercourse  I 
had,  that  the  convention  would  make  a  constitution 
and  send  it  here  without  submitting  it  to  the  popular 
vote." 

In  speaking  of  this  meeting  again  on  the  2ist  of 


1858]         Speech  at  Charleston  121 

December,  1857  ("Congressional  Globe,"  same  vol 
ume,  page  113),  Senator  Bigler  said: 

"Nothing  was  farther  from  my  mind  than  to  allude 
to  any  social  or  confidential  interview.  The  meeting 
was  not  of  that  character.  Indeed,  it  was  semi-offi 
cial,  and  called  to  promote  the  public  good.  My 
recollection  was  clear  that  I  left  the  conference  under 
the  impression  that  it  had  been  deemed  best  to  adopt 
measures  to  admit  Kansas  as  a  State  through  the 
agency  of  one  popular  election,  and  that  for  delegates 
to  the  convention.  This  impression  was  the  stronger 
because  I  thought  the  spirit  of  the  bill  infringed  upon 
the  doctrine  of  non-intervention,  to  which  I  had  great 
aversion;  but  with  the  hope  of  accomplishing  great 
good,  and  as  no  movement  had  been  made  in  that 
direction  in  the  Territory,  I  waived  this  objection,  and 
concluded  to  support  the  measure.  I  have  a  few 
items  of  testimony  as  to  the  correctness  of  these  im 
pressions,  and  with  their  submission  I  shall  be  con 
tent.  I  have  before  me  the  bill  reported  by  the  sena 
tor  from  Illinois  on  the  yth  of  March,  1856,  provid 
ing  for  the  admission  of  Kansas  as  a  State,  the  third 
section  of  which  reads  as  follows : 

'That  the  following  propositions  be,  and  the  same 
are  hereby,  offered  to  the  said  convention  of  the  peo 
ple  of  Kansas,  when  formed,  for  their  free  acceptance 
or  rejection;  which,  if  accepted  by  the  convention  and 
ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election  for  the  adoption 
of  the  constitution,  shall  be  obligatory  upon  the 
United  States,  and  upon  the  said  State  of  Kansas.7 


122  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

"The  bill  read  in  place  by  the  senator  from  Geor 
gia,  on  the  25th  of  June,  and  referred  to  the  Commit 
tee  on  Territories,  contained  the  same  section,  word 
for  word.  Both  these  bills  were  under  consideration 
at  the  conference  referred  to;  but,  sir,  when  the  sena 
tor  from  Illinois  reported  the  Toombs  bill  to  the  Sen 
ate,  with  amendments,  the  next  morning,  it  did  not 
contain  that  portion  of  the  third  section  which  indi 
cated  to  the  convention  that  the  constitution  should 
be  approved  by  the  people.  The  words  'and  ratified 
by  the  people  at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of  the 
constitution'  had  been  stricken  out." 

I  am  not  now  seeking  to  prove  that  Douglas  was 
in  the  plot  to  force  a  constitution  upon  Kansas,  with 
out  allowing  the  people  to  vote  directly  upon  it.  I 
shall  attend  to  that  branch  of  the  subject  by  and  by. 
My  object  now  is  to  prove  the  existence  of  the  plot, 
what  the  design  was,  and  I  ask  if  I  have  not  already 
done  so.  Here  are  the  facts : 

The  introduction  of  a  bill  on  the  yth  of  March, 
1856,  providing  for  the  calling  of  a  convention  in 
Kansas  to  form  a  State  constitution,  and  providing 
that  the  constitution  should  be  submitted  to  the  people 
for  adoption ;  an  amendment  to  this  bill,  proposed  by 
Mr.  Toombs,  containing  the  same  requirement;  a 
reference  of  these  various  bills  to  the  Committee  on 
Territories;  a  consultation  of  senators  to  determine 
whether  it  was  advisable  to  have  the  constitution  for 
ratification;  the  determination  that  it  was  not  advisa 
ble;  and  a  report  of  the  bill  back  to  the  Senate  next 
morning,  with  the  clause  providing  for  the  submis- 


1 858]          Speech  at  Charleston  123 

sion  stricken  out — could  evidence  be  more  complete 
to  establish  the  first  part  of  the  charge  I  have  made 
of  a  plot  having  been  entered  into  by  somebody  to 
have  a  constitution  adopted  without  submitting  it  to 
the  people  ? 

Now,  for  the  other  part  of  the  charge.  That 
Judge  Douglas  was  in  this  plot,  whether  knowingly 
or  ignorantly,  is  not  material  to  my  purpose.  The 
charge  is  that  he  was  an  instrument  co-operating  in 
the  project  to  have  a  constitution  formed  and  put  into 
operation  without  affording  the  people  an  oppor 
tunity  to  pass  upon  it.  The  first  evidence  to  sustain 
the  charge  is  the  fact  that  he  reported  back  the 
Toombs  amendment  with  the  clause  providing  for 
the  submission  stricken  out:  this,  in  connection  with 
his  speech  in  the  Senate  on  the  9th  of  December,  1857 
("Congressional  Globe,"  Part  I,  page  14),  wherein 
he  stated: 

"That  during  the  last  Congress,  I  [Mr.  Douglas] 
reported  a  bill  from  the  Committee  on  Territories, 
to  authorize  the  people  of  Kansas  to  assemble  and 
form  a  constitution  for  themselves.  Subsequently  the 
senator  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Toombs]  brought  for 
ward  a  substitute  for  my  bill,  which,  after  having 
been  modified  by  him  and  myself  in  consultation,  was 
passed  by  the  Senate." 

This  of  itself  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  show  that 
my  colleague  was  an  instrument  in  the  plot  to  have  a 
constitution  put  in  force  without  submitting  it  to  the 
people,  and  to  forever  close  his  mouth  from  attempt- 


124  Abraham  Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

ing  to  deny.  No  man  can  reconcile  his  acts  and  for 
mer  declarations  with  his  present  denial,  and  the  only 
charitable  conclusion  would  be  that  he  was  being  used 
by  others  without  knowing  it.  Whether  he  is  en 
titled  to  the  benefit  of  even  this  excuse,  you  must 
judge  on  a  candid  hearing  of  the  facts  I  shall  present. 
When  the  charge  was  first  made  in  the  United  States 
Senate,  by  Mr.  Bigler,  that  my  colleague  had  voted 
for  an  Enabling  Act  which  put  a  government  in  op 
eration  without  submitting  the  constitution  to  the  peo 
ple,  my  colleague  (" Congressional  Globe,"  last  ses 
sion,  Part  I,  page  24)  stated: 

"I  will  ask  the  senator  to  show  me  an  intimation 
from  any  one  member  of  the  Senate,  in  the  whole  de 
bate  on  the  Toombs  bill,  and  in  the  Union  from  any 
quarter,  that  the  constitution  was  not  to  be  submitted 
to  the  people.  I  will  venture  to  say  that  on  all  sides 
of  the  chamber  it  was  so  understood  at  the  time.  If 
the  opponents  of  the  bill  had  understood  it  was  not, 
they  would  have  made  the  point  on  it;  and  if  they 
had  made  it  we  should  certainly  have  yielded  to  it, 
and  put  in  the  clause.  That  is  a  discovery  made 
since  the  President  found  out  that  it  was  not  safe  to 
take  it  for  granted  that  that  would  be  done  which 
ought  in  fairness  to  have  been  done." 

I  knew,  at  the  time  this  statement  was  made,  that 
I  had  urged  the  very  objection  to  the  Toombs  bill 
two  years  before,  that  it  did  not  provide  for  the  sub 
mission  of  the  constitution.  You  will  find  my  re 
marks,  made  on  the  2d  of  July,  1856,  in  the  appendix 


1858]         Speech  at  Charleston  125 

to  the  ''Congressional  Globe"  of  that  year,  page  179, 
urging  this  very  objection.  Do  you  ask  why  I  did 
not  expose  him  at  the  time?  I  will  tell  you.  Mr. 
Douglas  was  then  doing  good  service  against  the  Le- 
compton  iniquity.  The  Republicans  were  then  en 
gaged  in  a  hand-to-hand  fight  with  the  National 
Democracy,  to  prevent  the  bringing  of  Kansas  into 
the  Union  as  a  slave  State  against  the  wishes  of  its 
inhabitants,  and  of  course  I  was  unwilling  to  turn  our 
guns  from  the  common  enemy  to  strike  down  an  ally. 
Judge  Douglas,  however,  on  the  same  day,  and  in  the 
same  debate,  probably  recollecting,  or  being  reminded 
of  the  fact,  that  I  had  objected  to  the  Toombs  bill, 
when  pending,  that  it  did  not  provide  for  the  submis 
sion  of  the  constitution  to  the  people,  made  another 
statement,  which  is  to  be  found  in  the  same  volume 
of  the  "Congressional  Globe,"  page  22,  in  which  he 
says: 

"That  the  bill  was  silent  on  the  subject  is  true,  and 
my  attention  was  called  to  that  about  the  time  it  was 
passed;  and  I  took  the  fair  construction  to  be,  that 
powers  not  delegated  were  reserved,  and  that  of 
course  the  constitution  would  be  submitted  to  the 
people." 

Whether  this  statement  is  consistent  with  the  state 
ment  just  before  made,  that  had  the  point  been  made 
it  would  have  been  yielded  to,  or  that  it  was  a  new 
discovery,  you  will  determine;  for  if  the  public  rec 
ords  do  not  convict  and  condemn  him,  he  may  go 
uncondemned,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned.  I  make  no 


126  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

use  here  of  the  testimony  of  Senator  Bigler  to  show 
that  Judge  Douglas  must  have  been  privy  to  the  con 
sultation  held  at  his  house,  when  it  was  determined 
not  to  submit  the  constitution  to  the  people,  because 
Judge  Douglas  denies  it,  and  I  wish  to  use  his  own 
acts  and  declarations,  which  are  abundantly  sufficient 
for  my  purpose. 

I  come  to  a  piece  of  testimony  which  disposes  of 
all  these  various  pretenses  which  have  been  set  up  for 
striking  out  of  the  original  Toombs  proposition  the 
clause  requiring  a  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the 
people,  and  shows  that  it  was  not  done  either  by  acci 
dent,  by  inadvertence,  or  because  it  was  believed  that 
the  bill,  being  silent  on  the  subject,  the  constitution 
would  necessarily  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  ap 
proval.  What  will  you  think,  after  listening  to  the 
facts  already  presented  to  show  that  there  was  a  de 
sign  with  those  who  concocted  the  Toombs  bill,  as 
amended,  not  to  submit  the  constitution  to  the  people, 
if  I  now  bring  before  you  the  amended  bill  as  Judge 
Douglas  reported  it  back,  and  show  the  clause  of  the 
original  bill  requiring  submission  was  not  only  struck 
out,  but  that  other  clauses  were  inserted  in  the  bill 
putting  it  absolutely  out  of  the  power  of  the  conven 
tion  to  submit  the  constitution  to  the  people  for  ap 
proval,  had  they  desired  to  do  so?  If  I  can  produce 
such  evidence  as  that,  will  you  not  all  agree  that  it 
clinches  and  establishes  forever  all  I  charged  at  Chi 
cago,  and  more  too? 

I  propose  now  to  furnish  that  evidence.     It  will 
be  remembered  that  Mr.  Toombs' s  bill  provided  for 


1858]         Speech   at   Charleston  127 

holding  an  election  for  delegates  to  form  a  constitu 
tion  under  the  supervision  of  commissioners  to  be  ap 
pointed  by  the  President,  and  in  the  bill,  as  reported 
back  by  Judge  Douglas,  these  words,  not  to  be  found 
in  the  original  bill,  are  inserted  at  the  close  of  the 
nth  section,  viz.: 

"And  until  the  complete  execution  of  this  act  no 
other  election  shall  be  held  in  said  Territory." 

This  clause  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  the  conven 
tion  to  refer  to  the  people  for  adoption;  it  absolutely 
prohibited  the  holding  of  any  other  election  than  that 
for  the  election  of  delegates,  till  that  act  was  com 
pletely  executed,  which  would  not  have  been  until 
Kansas  was  admitted  as  a  State,  or,  at  all  events,  till 
her  constitution  was  fully  prepared  and  ready  for  sub* 
mission  to  Congress  for  admission.  Other  amend 
ments  reported  by  Judge  Douglas  to  the  original 
Toombs  bill  clearly  show  that  the  intention  was  to 
enable  Kansas  to  become  a  State  without  any  further 
action  than  simply  a  resolution  of  admission.  The 
amendment  reported  by  Mr.  Douglas,  that  "until  the 
next  congressional  apportionment  the  said  State  shall 
have  one  representative/'  clearly  shows  this,  no  such 
provision  being  contained  in  the  original  Toombs  bill. 
For  what  other  earthly  purpose  could  the  clause  to 
prevent  any  other  election  in  Kansas,  except  that  of 
delegates,  till  it  was  admitted  as  a  State,  have  been 
inserted  except  to  prevent  a  submission  of  the  consti 
tution,  when  formed,  to  the  people? 

The  Toombs  bill  did  not  pass  in  the  exact  shape 


1 28  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

in  which  Judge  Douglas  reported  it.  Several  amend 
ments  were  made  to  it  in  the  Senate.  I  am  now  deal 
ing  with  the  action  of  Judge  Douglas  as  connected 
with  that  bill,  and  speak  of  the  bill  as  he  recom 
mended  it.  The  facts  I  have  stated  in  regard  to  this 
matter  appear  upon  the  records,  which  I  have  here 
present  to  show  to  any  man  who  wishes  to  look  at 
them.  They  establish,  beyond  the  power  of  contro 
versy,  all  the  charges  I  have  made,  and  show  that 
Judge  Douglas  was  made  use  of  as  an  instrument  by 
others,  or  else  knowingly  was  a  party  to  the  scheme  to 
have  a  government  put  in  force  over  the  people  of 
Kansas,  without  giving  them  an  opportunity  to  pass 
upon  it.  That  others  high  in  position  in  the  so-called 
Democratic  party  were  parties  to  such  a  scheme  is 
confessed  by  Governor  Bigler;  and  the  only  reason 
why  the  scheme  was  not  carried,  and  Kansas  long  ago 
forced  into  the  Union  as  a  slave  State,  is  the  fact  that 
the  Republicans  were  sufficiently  strong  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  to  defeat  the  measure. 

Extract  from  Mr.  Douglas's  Speech  made  at  Jack 
sonville,  and  referred  to  by  Mr.  Lincoln  in  his 
opening  at  Charleston. 

I  have  been  reminded  by  a  friend  behind  me  that 
there  Is  another  topic  upon  which  there  has  been  a 
desire  expressed  that  I  should  speak.  I  am  told  that 
Mr.  Lyman  Trumbull,  who  has  the  good  fortune  to 
hold  a  seat  in  the  United  States  Senate,  in  violation 
of  the  bargain  between  him  and  Lincoln,  was  here 
the  other  day  and  occupied  his  time  in  making  certain 


1858]         Speech  at  Charleston  I29 

charges  against  me,  involving,  if  they  be  true,  moral 
turpitude.  I  am  also  informed  that  the  charges  he 
made  here  were  substantially  the  same  as  those  made 
by  him  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  which  were  printed  in 
the  newspapers  of  that  city.  I  now  propose  to  an 
swer  those  charges  and  to  annihilate  every  pretext 
that  an  honest  man  has  ever  had  for  repeating  them. 

In  order  that  I  may  meet  these  charges  fairly,  I 
will  read  them,  as  made  by  Mr.  Trumbull  in  his 
Chicago  speech,  in  his  own  language.  He  says : 

"Now,  fellow-citizens,  I  make  the  distinct  charge 
that  there  was  a  preconcerted  arrangement  and  plot 
entered  into  by  the  very  men  who  now  claim  credit 
for  opposing  a  constitution  not  submitted  to  the  peo 
ple,  to  have  a  constitution  formed  and  put  in  force 
without  giving  the  people  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon 
it.  This,  my  friends,  is  a  serious  charge,  but  I  charge 
it  to-night,  that  the  very  men  who  traverse  the  coun 
try  under  banners,  proclaiming  popular  sovereignty, 
by  design  concocted  a  bill  on  purpose  to  force  a  con 
stitution  upon  that  people." 

Again,  speaking  to  some  one  in  the  crowd,  he  says : 

"And  you  want  to  satisfy  yourself  that  he  was  in 
the  plot  to  force  a  constitution  upon  that  people  ?  I 
will  satisfy  you.  I  will  cram  the  truth  down  any 
honest  man's  throat,  until  he  cannot  deny  it,  and  to 
the  man  who  does  deny  it,  I  will  cram  the  lie  down 
his  throat  till  he  shall  cry  enough !  It  is  preposterous 
— it  is  the  most  damnable  effrontery  that  man  ever 
put  on  to  conceal  a  scheme  to  defraud  and  cheat  the 


130  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

people  out  of  their  rights,  and  then  claim  credit 
for  it." 

That  is  polite  and  decent  language  for  a  senator 
of  the  United  States.  Remember  that  that  language 
was  used  without  any  provocation  whatever  from  me. 
I  had  not  alluded  to  him  in  any  manner  in  any  speech 
that  I  had  made;  hence  it  was  without  provocation. 
As  soon  as  he  sets  his  foot  within  the  State,  he  makes 
the  direct  charge  that  I  was  a  party  to  a  plot  to  force 
a  constitution  upon  the  people  of  Kansas  against  their 
will,  and  knowing  that  it  would  be  denied,  he  talks 
about  cramming  the  lie  down  the  throat  of  any  man 
who  shall  deny  it,  until  he  cries  enough. 

Why  did  he  take  it  for  granted  that  it  would  be 
denied,  unless  he  knew  it  to  be  false  ?  Why  did  he 
deem  it  necessary  to  make  a  threat  in  advance  that 
he  would  "cram  the  lie"  down  the  throat  of  any  man 
that  should  deny  it?  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  entire 
Abolition  party  consider  it  very  polite  for  Mr.  Trum- 
bull  to  go  round  uttering  calumnies  of  that  kind, 
bullying  and  talking  of  cramming  lies  down  men's 
throats;  but  if  I  deny  any  of  his  lies  by  calling  him  a 
liar,  they  are  shocked  at  the  indecency  of  the  lan 
guage  ;  hence,  to-day,  instead  of  calling  him  a  liar,  I 
intend  to  prove  that  he  is  one. 

I  wish,  in  the  first  place,  to  refer  to  the  evidence 
adduced  by  Trumbull,  at  Chicago,  to  sustain  his 
charge.  He  there  declared  that  Mr.  Toombs,  of 
Georgia,  introduced  a  bill  into  Congress  authorizing 
the  people  of  Kansas  to  form  a  constitution  and  come 
into  the  Union,  that,  when  introduced,  it  contained 


1858]         Speech  at  Charleston  131 

a  clause  requiring  the  constitution  to  be  submitted  to 
the  people,  and  that  I  struck  out  the  words  of  that 
clause. 

Suppose  it  were  true  that  there  was  such  a  clause 
in  the  bill,  and  that  I  struck  it  out,  is  that  proof  of 
a  plot  to  force  a  constitution  upon  a  people  against 
their  will?  Bear  in  mind  that,  from  the  days  of 
George  Washington  to  the  administration  of  Frank 
lin  Pierce,  there  has  never  been  passed  by  Congress 
a  bill  requiring  the  submission  of  a  constitution  to  the 
people.  If  Trumbull's  charge,  that  I  struck  out  that 
clause,  were  true,  it  would  only  prove  that  I  had  re 
ported  the  bill  in  the  exact  shape  of  every  bill  of  like 
character  that  passed  under  Washington,  Jefferson, 
Madison,  Monroe,  Jackson,  or  any  other  president, 
to  the  time  of  the  then  present  administration.  I 
ask  you  would  that  be  evidence  of  a  design  to  force  a 
constitution  on  a  people  against  their  will?  If  it 
were  so,  it  would  be  evidence  against  Washington, 
Jefferson,  Madison,  Jackson,  Van  Buren,  and  every 
other  president. 

But  upon  examination,  it  turns  out  that  the  Toombs 
bill  never  did  contain  a  clause  requiring  the  constitu 
tion  to  be  submitted.  Hence  no  such  clause  was  ever 
stricken  out  by  me  or  anybody  else.  It  is  true,  how 
ever,  that  the  Toombs  bill  and  its  authors  all  took  it 
for  granted  that  the  constitution  would  be  submitted. 
There  had  never  been  in  the  history  of  this  govern 
ment  any  attempt  made  to  force  a  constitution  upon 
an  unwilling  people,  and  nobody  dreamed  that  any 
such  attempt  would  be  made,  or  deemed  it  necessary 


132  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

to  provide  for  such  a  contingency.  If  such  a  clause 
was  necessary  in  Mr.  Trumbull's  opinion,  why  did  he 
not  offer  an  amendment  to  that  effect? 

In  order  to  give  more  pertinency  to  that  question,  I 
will  read  an  extract  from  Trumbull's  speech  in  the 
Senate,  on  the  Toombs  bill,  made  on  the  2d  day  of 
July,  1856.  He  said: 

uWe  are  asked  to  amend  this  bill,  and  make  it  per 
fect,  and  a  liberal  spirit  seems  to  be  manifested  on 
the  part  of  some  senators  to  have  a  fair  bill.  It  is 
difficult,  I  admit,  to  frame  a  bill  that  will  give  satis 
faction  to  all;  but  to  approach  it,  or  come  near  it,  I 
think  two  things  must  be  done." 

The  first,  then,  he  goes  on  to  say,  was  the  applica 
tion  of  the  Wilmot  proviso  to  the  Territories,  and 
the  second  the  repeal  of  all  the  laws  passed  by  the 
territorial  legislature.  He  did  not  then  say  that  it 
was  necessary  to  put  in  a  clause  requiring  the  submis 
sion  of  the  constitution.  Why,  if  he  thought  such  a 
provision  necessary,  did  he  not  introduce  it?  He 
says  in  his  speech  that  he  was  invited  to  offer  amend 
ments.  Why  did  he  not  do  so  ?  He  cannot  pretend 
that  he  had  no  chance  to  do  this,  for  he  did  offer  some 
amendments,  but  none  requiring  submission. 

I  now  proceed  to  show  that  Mr.  Trumbull  knew 
at  the  time  that  the  bill  was  silent  as  to  the  subject  of 
submission,  and  also  that  he,  and  everybody  else,  took 
it  for  granted  that  the  constitution  would  be  submit 
ted.  Now  for  the  evidence.  In  his  second  speech 
he  says:  "  The  bill  in  many  of  its  features  meets  my 


1858]          Speech  at  Charleston  133 

approbation."     So  he  did  not  think  it  so  very  bad. 
Further  on  he  says : 

"  In  regard  to  the  measure  introduced  by  the  sena 
tor  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Toombs],  and  recommended 
by  the  committee,  I  regard  it,  in  many  respects,  as  a 
most  excellent  bill ;  but  we  must  look  at  it  in  the  light 
of  surrounding  circumstances.  In  the  condition  of 
things  now  existing  in  the  country,  I  do  not  consider 
it  as  a  safe  measure,  nor  one  which  will  give  peace, 
and  I  will  give  my  reasons.  First,  it  affords  no  im 
mediate  relief.  It  provides  for  taking  a  census  of 
the  voters  in  the  Territory,  for  an  election  in  Novem 
ber,  and  the  assembling  of  a  convention  in  December, 
to  form,  if  it  thinks  proper,  a  constitution  for  Kansas, 
preparatory  to  its  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State. 
It  is  not  until  December  that  the  convention  is  to  meet. 
It  would  take  some  time  to  form  a  constitution.  I 
suppose  that  constitution  would  have  to  be  ratified 
by  the  people  before  it  becomes  valid." 

He  there  expressly  declared  that  he  supposed,  un 
der  the  bill,  the  constitution  would  have  to  be  sub 
mitted  to  the  people  before  it  became  valid.  He 
went  on  to  say: 

"  No  provision  is  made  in  this  bill  for  such  a  ratifi 
cation.  This  is  objectionable  to  my  mind.  I  do  not 
think  the  people  should  be  bound  by  a  constitution, 
without  passing  upon  it  directly,  themselves." 

Why  did  he  not  offer  an  amendment  providing  for 
such  a  submission,  if  he  thought  it  necessary?  Not- 


134  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

withstanding  the  absence  of  such  a  clause,  he  took  it 
for  granted  that  the  constitution  would  have  to  be 
ratified  by  the  people,  under  the  bill. 

In  another  part  of  the  same  speech,  he  says: 

"  There  is  nothing  said  in  this  bill,  so  far  as  I  have 
discovered,  about  submitting  the  constitution  which  is 
to  be  framed  to  the  people,  for  their  sanction  or  re 
jection.  Perhaps  the  convention  would  have  the 
right  to  submit  it,  if  it  should  think  proper;  but  it  is 
certainly  not  compelled  to  do  so,  according  to  the 
provisions  of  the  bill.  If  it  is  to  be  submitted  to  the 
people,  it  will  take  time,  and  it  will  not  be  until  some 
time  next  year  that  this  new  constitution,  affirmed  and 
ratified  by  the  people,  would  be  submitted  here  to 
Congress  for  its  acceptance,  and  what  is  to  be  the 
condition  of  that  people  in  the  mean  time?  " 

You  see  that  his  argument  then  was  that  the 
Toombs  bill  would  not  get  Kansas  into  the  Union 
quick  enough,  and  was  objectionable  on  that  account. 
He  had  no  fears  about  this  submission,  or  why  did 
he  not  introduce  an  amendment  to  meet  the  case? 
[A  voice:  "  Why  didn't  you?  You  were  chairman 
of  the  committee."]  I  will  answer  that  question  for 
you. 

In  the  first  place,  no  such  provision  had  ever  be 
fore  been  put  in  any  similar  act  passed  by  Congress. 
I  did  not  suppose  that  there  was  an  honest  man  who 
would  pretend  that  the  omission  of  such  a  clause 
furnished  evidence  of  a  conspiracy  or  attempt  to  im 
pose  on  the  people.  It  could  not  be  expected  that 


1858]          Speech  at  Charleston  135 

such  of  us  as  did  not  think  that  omission  was  evidence 
of  such  a  scheme  would  offer  such  an  amendment; 
but  if  Trumbull  then  believed  what  he  now  says,  why 
did  he  not  offer  the  amendment,  and  try  to  prevent 
it,  when  he  was,  as  he  says,  invited  to  do  so  ? 

In  this  connection  I  will  tell  you  what  the  main 
point  of  discussion  was.  There  was  a  bill  pending 
to  admit  Kansas  whenever  she  should  have  a  popula 
tion  of  93,420,  that  being  the  ratio  required  for  a 
member  of  Congress.  Under  that  bill  Kansas  could 
not  have  become  a  State  for  some  years,  because  she 
could  not  have  had  the  requisite  population.  Mr. 
Toombs  took  it  into  his  head  to  bring  in  a  bill  to 
admit  Kansas  then,  with  only  twenty-five  or  thirty 
thousand  people,  and  the  question  was  whether  we 
would  allow  Kansas  to  come  in  under  this  bill,  or 
keep  her  out  under  mine  until  she  had  93,420  people. 
The  committee  considered  that  question,  and  over 
ruled  me  by  deciding  in  favor  of  the  immediate  ad 
mission  of  Kansas,  and  I  reported  accordingly.  I 
hold  in  my  hand  a  copy  of  the  report  which  I  made 
at  that  time.  I  will  read  from  it : 

*  The  point  upon  which  your  committee  have  enter 
tained  the  most  serious  and  grave  doubts  in  regard 
to  the  propriety  of  indorsing  the  proposition  relates 
to  the  fact  that,  in  the  absence  of  any  census  of  the 
inhabitants,  there  is  reason  to  apprehend  that  the 
Territory  does  not  contain  sufficient  population  to  en 
title  them  to  demand  admission  under  the  treaty  with 
France,  if  we  take  the  ratio  of  representation  for  a 
member  of  Congress  as  the  rule." 


136  Abraham   Lincoln         [Sept.  18 

Thus  you  see  that  in  the  written  report  accompany 
ing  the  bill,  I  said  that  the  great  difficulty  with  the 
committee  was  the  question  of  population.  In  the 
same  report  I  happened  to  refer  to  the  question  of 
submission.  Now,  listen  to  what  I  said  about  that: 

"  In  the  opinion  of  your  committee,  whenever  a 
constitution  shall  be  formed  in  any  Territory,  prepa 
ratory  to  its  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  jus 
tice,  the  genius  of  our  institutions,  the  whole  theory 
of  our  republican  system  imperatively  demand  that 
the  voice  of  the  people  shall  be  fairly  expressed,  and 
their  will  embodied  in  that  fundamental  law  without 
fraud  or  violence,  or  intimidation,  or  any  other  im 
proper  or  unlawful  influence,  and  subject  to  no  other 
restrictions  than  those  imposed  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States." 

I  read  this  from  the  report  I  made  at  the  time  on 
the  Toombs  bill.  I  will  read  yet  another  passage 
from  the  same  report.  After  setting  out  the  features 
of  the  Toombs  bill,  I  contrast  it  with  the  proposition 
of  Senator  Seward,  saying: 

"  The  revised  proposition  of  the  senator  from  Geor 
gia  refers  all  matters  in  dispute  to  the  decision  of  the 
present  population,  with  guarantees  of  fairness  and 
safeguards  against  frauds  and  violence,  to  which  no 
reasonable  man  can  find  just  grounds  of  exception, 
while  the  senator  from  New  York,  if  his  proposition 
is  designed  to  recognize  and  impart  vitality  to  the 
Topeka  constitution,  proposes  to  disfranchise  not 


1858]          Speech  at  Charleston  137 

only  all  the  emigrants  who  have  arrived  in  the  Ter 
ritory  this  year,  but  all  the  law-abiding  men  who  re 
fused  to  join  in  the  act  of  open  rebellion  against  the 
constituted  authorities  of  the  Territory  last  year  by 
making  the  unauthorized  and  unlawful  action  of  a 
political  party  the  fundamental  law  of  the  whole  peo- 
pie." 

Then,  again,  I  repeat  that  under  that  bill  the  ques 
tion  is  to  be  referred  to  the  present  population  to 
decide  for  or  against  coming  into  the  Union  under 
the  constitution  they  may  adopt. 

Mr.  Trumbull,  when  at  Chicago,  rested  his  charge 
upon  the  allegation  that  the  clause  requiring  submis 
sion  was  originally  in  the  bill,  and  was  stricken  out 
by  me. 

When  that  falsehood  was  exposed  by  a  publica 
tion  of  the  record,  he  went  to  Alton  and  made  an 
other  speech,  repeating  the  charge,  and  referring  to 
other  and  different  evidence  to  sustain  it.  He  saw 
that  he  was  caught  in  his  first  falsehood,  so  he  changed 
the  issue,  and  instead  of  resting  upon  the  allegation 
of  striking  out,  he  made  it  rest  upon  the  declaration 
that  I  had  introduced  a  clause  into  the  bill  prohibit 
ing  the  people  from  voting  upon  the  constitution.  I 
am  told  that  he  made  the  same  charge  here  that  he 
made  at  Alton,  that  I  had  actually  introduced  and 
incorporated  into  the  bill  a  clause  which  prohibited 
the  people  from  voting  upon  their  constitution.  I 
hold  his  Alton  speech  in  my  hand,  and  will  read  the 
amendment  which  he  alleges  that  I  offered.  It  is  in 
these  words : 


138  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

"And  until  the  complete  execution  of  this  act  no 
other  election  shall  be  held  in  said  Territory." 

Trumbull  says  the  object  of  that  amendment  was 
to  prevent  the  convention  from  submitting  the  con 
stitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  I  will  read  what 
he  said  at  Alton  on  that  subject: 

"  This  clause  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  the  con 
vention,  had  it  been  so  disposed,  to  submit  the  con 
stitution  to  the  people  for  adoption;  for  it  absolutely 
prohibited  the  holding  of  any  other  election,  than 
that  for  the  election  of  delegates,  till  that  act  was 
completely  executed,  which  would  not  have  been  till 
Kansas  was  admitted  as  a  State,  or,  at  all  events,  till 
her  constitution  was  fully  prepared  and  ready  for 
submission  to  Congress  for  admission." 

Now,  do  you  suppose  that  Mr.  Trumbull  supposed 
that  that  clause  prohibited  the  convention  from  sub 
mitting  the  constitution  to  the  people,  when,  in  his 
speech  in  the  Senate,  he  declared  that  the  convention 
had  a  right  to  submit  it?  In  his  Alton  speech,  as  will 
be  seen  by  the  extract  which  I  have  read,  he  declared 
that  the  clause  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  the  conven 
tion  to  submit  the  constitution,  and  in  his  speech  in 
the  Senate  he  said : 

"  There  is  nothing  said  in  this  bill,  so  far  as  I  have 
discovered,  about  submitting  the  constitution  which  is 
to  be  formed  to  the  people,  for  their  sanction  or  re 
jection.  Perhaps  the  convention  could  have  the  right 
to  submit  it,  if  it  should  think  proper,  but  it  is  cer- 


1858]          Speech  at  Charleston  139 

tainly  not  compelled  to  do  so  according  to  the  provi 
sions  of  the  bill." 

Thus  you  see  that,  in  Congress,  he  declared  the  bill 
to  be  silent  on  the  subject,  and  a  few  days  since,  at 
Alton,  he  made  a  speech,  and  said  that  there  was  a 
provision  in  the  bill  prohibiting  submission. 

I  have  two  answers  to  make  to  that.  In  the  first 
place,  the  amendment  which  he  quotes  as  depriving 
the  people  of  an  opportunity  to  vote  upon  the  consti 
tution  was  stricken  out  on  my  motion  —  absolutely 
stricken  out  and  not  voted  on  at  all !  In  the  second 
place,  in  lieu  of  it,  a  provision  was  voted  in  authoriz 
ing  the  convention  to  order  an  election  whenever  it 
pleased.  I  will  read.  After  Trumbull  had  made  his 
speech  in  the  Senate,  declaring  that  the  constitution 
would  probably  be  submitted  to  the  people,  although 
the  bill  was  silent  upon  that  subject,  I  made  a  few 
remarks,  and  offered  two  amendments,  which  you  may 
find  in  the  appendix  to  the  "Congressional  Globe," 
volume  XXXIII,  first  session  of  the  thirty-fourth 
Congress,  page  795. 

I  quote : 

"Mr.  Douglas:  I  have  an  amendment  to  offer 
from  the  Committee  on  Territories.  On  page  8,  sec 
tion  1 1 ,  strike  out  the  words  '  until  the  complete  exe 
cution  of  this  act  no  other  election  shall  be  held  in 
said  Territory,'  and  insert  the  amendment  which  I 
hold  in  my  hand." 

The  amendment  was  as  follows: 

'*  That  all  persons  who  shall  possess  the  other  qual- 


140  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

ifications  prescribed  for  voters  under  this  act,  and 
who  shall  have  been  bona  fide  inhabitants  of  said  Ter 
ritory  since  its  organization,  and  who  shall  have  ab 
sented  themselves  therefrom  in  consequence  of  the 
disturbances  therein,  and  who  shall  return  before  the 
first  day  of  October  next,  and  become  bona  fide  inhab 
itants  of  the  Territory,  with  the  intent  of  making  it 
their  permanent  home,  and  shall  present  satisfactory 
evidence  of  these  facts  to  the  Board  of  Commission 
ers,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  said  election,  and  shall 
have  their  names  placed  on  said  corrected  list  of 
voters  for  that  purpose." 

That  amendment  was  adopted  unanimously.  After 
its  adoption,  the  record  shows  the  following : 

"  Mr.  Douglas:  I  have  another  amendment  to  of 
fer  from  the  committee,  to  follow  the  amendment 
which  has  been  adopted.  The  bill  reads  now:  'And 
until  the  complete  execution  of  this  act,  no  other  elec 
tion  shall  be  held  in  said  Territory.'  It  has  been 
suggested  that  it  should  be  modified  in  this  way: 
'And  to  avoid  all  conflict  in  the  complete  execution 
of  this  act,  all  other  elections  in  said  Territory  are 
hereby  postponed  until  such  time  as  said  convention 
shall  appoint ' ;  so  that  they  can  appoint  the  day  in  the 
event  that  there  should  be  a  failure  to  come  into  the 
Union." 

This  amendment  was  also  agreed  to  without  dis 
sent. 

Thus  you  see  that  the  amendment  quoted  by  Trum- 
bull  at  Alton  as  evidence  against  me,  instead  of  being 


1858]          Speech  at   Charleston  141 

put  into  the  bill  by  me,  was  stricken  out  on  my  motion, 
and  never  became  a  part  thereof  at  all.  You  also  see 
that  the  substituted  clause  expressly  authorized  the 
convention  to  appoint  such  day  of  election  as  it  should 
deem  proper. 

Mr.  Trumbull,  when  he  made  that  speech,  knew 
these  facts.  He  forged  his  evidence  from  beginning 
to  end,  and  by  falsifying  the  record  he  endeavors  to 
bolster  up  his  false  charge.  I  ask  you  what  you  think 
of  Trumbull  thus  going  around  the  country,  falsify 
ing  and  garbling  the  public  records?  I  ask  you 
whether  you  will  sustain  a  man  who  will  descend  to 
the  infamy  of  such  conduct? 

Mr.  Douglas  proceeded  to  remark  that  he  should 
not  hereafter  occupy  his  time  in  refuting  such  charges 
made  by  Trumbull,  but  that  Lincoln  having  indorsed 
the  character  of  Trumbull  for  veracity,  he  should 
hold  him  [Lincoln]  responsible  for  the  slanders. 


142          Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Sept.  18 


Senator  Douglas's  Reply  In  the  Charleston  Joint 
Debate. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  I  had 
supposed  that  we  assembled  here  to-day 
for  the  purpose  of  a  joint  discussion  be 
tween  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself,  upon  the  politi 
cal  questions  which  now  agitate  the  whole 
country.  The  rule  of  such  discussions  is,  that 
the  opening  speaker  shall  touch  upon  all  the 
points  he  intends  to  discuss,  in  order  that  his 
opponent,  in  reply,  shall  have  the  opportunity 
of  answering  them.  Let  me  ask  you  what  ques 
tions  of  public  policy,  relating  to  the  welfare 
of  this  State  or  the  Union,  has  Mr.  Lincoln  dis 
cussed  before  you?  Mr.  Lincoln  simply  con 
tented  himself  at  the  outset  by  saying,  that  he 
was  not  in  favor  of  social  and  political  equality 
between  the  white  man  and  the  negro,  and  did 
not  desire  the  law  so  changed  as  to  make  the 
latter  voters  or  eligible  to  office.  I  am  glad 
that  I  have  at  last  succeeded  in  getting  an  an 
swer  out  of  him  upon  this  subject  of  negro-citi 
zenship  and  eligibility  to  office,  for  I  have  been 
trying  to  bring  him  to  the  point  on  it  ever  since 
this  canvass  commenced. 


1858]          Reply   at  Charleston  143 

I  will  now  call  your  attention  to  the  question 
w7hich  Mr.  Lincoln  has  occupied  his  entire  time 
in  discussing.  He  spent  his  whole  hour  in  re 
tailing  a  charge  made  by  Senator  Trumbull 
against  me.  The  circumstances  out  of  which 
that  charge  was  manufactured,  occurred  prior 
to  the  last  presidential  election,  over  two  years 
ago.  If  the  charge  was  true,  why  did  not 
Trumbull  make  it  in  1856,  when  I  was  dis 
cussing  the  questions  of  that  day  all  over  this 
State  with  Lincoln  and  him,  and  when  it  was 
pertinent  to  the  then  issue?  He  was  then  as 
silent  as  the  grave  on  the  subject.  If  the  charge 
was  true,  the  time  to  have  brought  it  forward 
was  the  canvass  of  1856,  the  year  when  the 
Toombs  bill  passed  the  Senate.  When  the 
facts  were  fresh  in  the  public  mind,  when  the 
Kansas  question  was  the  paramount  question  of 
the  day,  and  when  such  a  charge  would  have 
had  a  material  bearing  on  the  election,  why  did 
he  and  Lincoln  remain  silent  then,  knowing 
that  such  a  charge  could  be  made  and  proved 
if  true?  Were  they  not  false  to  you  and  false 
to  the  country  in  going  through  that  entire  cam 
paign,  concealing  their  knowledge  of  this  enor 
mous  conspiracy  which,  Mr.  Trumbull  says,  he 
then  knew  and  would  not  tell?  Mr.  Lincoln 
intimates,  in  his  speech,  a  good  reason  why  Mr. 
Trumbull  would  not  tell;  for  he  says  that  it 


144  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Sept.  18 

might  be  true,  as  I  proved  that  it  was  at  Jack 
sonville,  that  Trumbull  was  also  in  the  plot,  yet 
that  the  fact  of  TrumbulPs  being  in  the  plot 
would  not  in  any  way  relieve  me.  He  illus 
trates  this  argument  by  supposing  himself  on 
trial  for  murder,  and  says  that  it  would  be  no 
extenuating  circumstance  if,  on  his  trial,  an 
other  man  was  found  to  be  a  party  to  his  crime. 
Well,  if  Trumbull  was  in  the  plot,  and  con 
cealed  it  in  order  to  escape  the  odium  which 
would  have  fallen  upon  himself,  I  ask  you 
whether  you  can  believe  him  now  when  he  turns 
State's  evidence,  and  avows  his  own  infamy  in 
order  to  implicate  me.  I  am  amazed  that  Mr. 
Lincoln  should  now  come  forward  and  indorse 
that  charge,  occupying  his  whole  hour  in  read 
ing  Mr.  TrumbulPs  speech  in  support  of  it, 
Why,  I  ask,  does  not  Mr.  Lincoln  make  a  speech 
of  his  own  instead  of  taking  up  his  time  reading 
TrumbulPs  speech  at  Alton?  I  supposed  that 
Mr.  Lincoln  was  capable  of  making  a  public 
speech  on  his  own  account,  or  I  should  not  have 
accepted  the  banter  from  him  for  a  joint  dis 
cussion.  ["How  about  the  charges?"]  Do 
not  trouble  yourselves ;  I  am  going  to  make  my 
speech  in  my  own  way,  and  I  trust,  as  the  Dem 
ocrats  listened  patiently  and  respectfully  to  Mr. 
Lincoln,  that  his  friends  will  not  interrupt  me 
when  I  am  answering  him.  When  Mr.  Trum- 


1858]          Reply   at   Charleston  145 

bull  returned  from  the  East,  the  first  thing  he 
did  when  he  landed  at  Chicago  was  to  make  a 
speech  wholly  devoted  to  assaults  upon  my  pub 
lic  character  and  public  action.  Up  to  that 
time  I  had  never  alluded  to  his  course  in  Con 
gress,  or  to  him  directly  or  indirectly;  and  hence 
his  assaults  upon  me  were  entirely  without 
provocation  and  without  excuse.  Since  then  he 
has  been  traveling  from  one  end  of  the  State 
to  the  other  repeating  his  vile  charge.  I  pro 
pose  now  to  read  it  in  his  own  language : 

Now,  fellow-citizens,  I  make  the  distinct  charge 
that  there  was  a  preconcerted  arrangement  and  plot 
entered  into  by  the  very  men  who  now  claim  credit 
for  opposing  a  constitution  formed  and  put  in  force 
without  giving  the  people  any  opportunity  to  pass 
upon  it.  This,  my  friends,  is  a  serious  charge,  but  I 
charge  it  to-night  that  the  very  men  who  traverse 
the  country  under  banners  proclaiming  popular  sov 
ereignty,  by  design  concocted  a  bill  on  purpose  to 
force  a  constitution  upon  that  people. 

In  answer  to  some  one  in  the  crowd,  who 
asked  him  a  question,  Trumbull  said: 

And  you  want  to  satisfy  yourself  that  he  was  in  the 
plot  to  force  a  constitution  upon  that  people?  I  will 
satisfy  you.  I  will  cram  the  truth  down  any  honest 
man's  throat  until  he  cannot  deny  it.  And  to  the 
man  who  does  deny  it,  I  will  cram  the  lie  down  his 
throat  till  he  shall  cry  enough. 


146  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Sept.  18 

It  is  preposterous  —  it  is  the  most  damnable  effront 
ery  that  man  ever  put  on  —  to  conceal  a  scheme  to 
defraud  and  cheat  the  people  out  of  their  rights,  and 
then  claim  credit  for  it. 

That  is  the  polite  language  Senator  Trum- 
bull  applied  to  me,  his  colleague,  when  I  was 
two  hundred  miles  off.  Why  did  he  not  speak 
out  as  boldly  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 
and  cram  the  lie  down  my  throat  when  I  denied 
the  charge,  first  made  by  Bigler,  and  made  him 
take  it  back?  You  all  recollect  how  Bigler  as 
saulted  me  when  I  was  engaged  in  a  hand-to- 
hand  fight,  resisting  a  scheme  to  force  a  con 
stitution  on  the  people  of  Kansas  against  their 
will.  He  then  attacked  me  with  this  charge; 
but  I  proved  its  utter  falsity,  nailed  the  slander 
to  the  counter,  and  made  him  take  the  back 
track.  There  is  not  an  honest  man  in  America 
who  read  that  debate  who  will  pretend  that  the 
charge  is  true.  Trumbull  was  then  present  in 
the  Senate,  face  to  face  with  me,  and  why  did 
he  not  then  rise  and  repeat  the  charge,  and  say 
he  would  cram  the  lie  down  by  throat?  I  tell 
you  that  Trumbull  then  knew  it  was  a  lie.  He 
knew  that  Toombs  denied  that  there  ever  was  a 
clause  in  the  bill  he  brought  forward,  calling 
for  and  requiring  a  submission  of  the  Kansas 
constitution  to  the  people.  I  will  tell  you  what 
the  facts  of  the  case  were.  I  introduced  a  bill 


1858]          Reply  at    Charleston  147 

to  authorize  the  people  of  Kansas  to  form  a 
constitution  and  come  into  the  Union  as  a  State 
whenever  they  should  have  the  requisite  popu 
lation  for  a  member  of  Congress,  and  Mr. 
Toombs  proposed  a  substitute,  authorizing  the 
people  of  Kansas,  with  their  then  population  of 
only  25,000,  to  form  a  constitution,  and  come  in 
at  once.  The  question  at  issue  was,  whether 
we  would  admit  Kansas  with  a  population  of 
25,000,  or  make  her  wait  until  she  had  the 
ratio  entitling  her  to  a  representative  in  Con 
gress,  which  was  93,420.  That  was  the  point 
of  dispute  in  the  Committee  on  Territories,  to 
which  both  my  bill  and  Mr.  Toombs's  substitute 
had  been  referred.  I  was  overruled  by  a  ma 
jority  of  the  committee,  my  proposition  re 
jected,  and  Mr.  Toombs's  proposition  to  admit 
Kansas  then,  with  her  population  of  25,000, 
adopted. 

Accordingly  a  bill  to  carry  out  his  idea  of 
immediate  admission  was  reported  as  a  substi 
tute  for  mine — the  only  points  at  issue  being, 
as  I  have  already  said,  the  question  of  popu 
lation,  and  the  adoption  of  safeguards  against 
frauds  at  the  election.  Trumbull  knew  this, 
— the  whole  Senate  knew  it, — and  hence  he 
was  silent  at  that  time.  He  waited  until  I  be 
came  engaged  in  this  canvass,  and  finding  that 
I  was  showing  up  Lincoln's  Abolitionism  and 


148  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Sept.  18 

negro-equality  doctrines,  that  I  was  driving 
Lincoln  to  the  wall,  and  white  men  would  not 
support  his  rank  Abolitionism,  he  came  back 
from  the  East  and  trumped  up  a  system  of 
charges  against  me,  hoping  that  I  would  be 
compelled  to  occupy  my  entire  time  in  defend 
ing  myself,  so  that  I  would  not  be  able  to  show 
up  the  enormity  of  the  principles  of  the  Abo 
litionists.  Now  the  only  reason,  and  the  true 
reason,  why  Mr.  Lincoln  has  occupied  the 
whole  of  his  first  hour  in  this  issue  between 
Trumbull  and  myself,  is  to  conceal  from  this 
vast  audience  the  real  questions  which  divide 
the  two  great  parties. 

I  am  not  going  to  allow  them  to  waste  much 
of  my  time  with  these  personal  matters.  I  have 
lived  in  this  State  twenty-five  years,  most  of  that 
time  have  been  in  public  life,  and  my  record  is 
open  to  you  all.  If  that  record  is  not  enough 
to  vindicate  me  from  these  petty,  malicious  as 
saults,  I  despise  ever  to  be  elected  to  office  by 
slandering  my  opponents  and  traducing  other 
men.  Mr.  Lincoln  asks  you  to  elect  him  to  the 
United  States  Senate  to-day  solely  because  he 
and  Trumbull  can  slander  me.  Has  he  given 
any  other  reason?  Has  he  avowed  what  he  was 
desirous  to  do  in  Congress  on  any  one  ques 
tion?  He  desires  to  ride  into  office,  not  upon 
his  own  merits,  not  upon  the  merits  and  sound- 


1858]          Reply   at  Charleston  149 

ness  of  his  principles,  but  upon  his  success  in 
fastening  a  stale  old  slander  upon  me. 

I  wish  you  to  bear  in  mind  that  up  to  the 
time  of  the  introduction  of  the  Toombs  bill, 
and  after  its  introduction,  there  had  never  been 
an  act  of  Congress  for  the  admission  of  a  new 
State  which  contained  a  clause  requiring  its 
constitution  to  be  submitted  to  the  people.  The 
general  rule  made  the  law  silent  on  the  subject, 
taking  it  for  granted  that  the  people  would 
demand  and  compel  a  popular  vote  on  the  rati 
fication  of  their  constitution.  Such  was  the 
general  rule  under  Washington,  Jefferson,  Mad 
ison,  Jackson,  and  Polk,  under  the  Whig  presi 
dents  and  the  Democratic  presidents  from  the 
beginning  of  the  government  down,  and  nobody 
dreamed  that  an  effort  would  ever  be  made  to 
abuse  the  power  thus  confided  to  the  people  of 
a  Territory.  For  this  reason  our  attention  was 
not  called  to  the  fact  of  whether  there  was  or 
was  not  a  clause  in  the  Toombs  bill  compelling 
submission,  but  it  was  taken  for  granted  that 
the  constitution  would  be  submitted  to  the  peo 
ple  whether  the  law  compelled  it  or  not. 

Now  I  will  read  from  the  report  by  me  as 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories  at 
the  time  I  reported  back  the  Toombs  substitute 
to  the  Senate.  It  contained  several  things 
which  I  had  voted  against  in  committee,  but 


150  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Sept.  18 

had  been  overruled  by  a  majority  of  the  mem 
bers,  and  it  was  my  duty  as  chairman  of  the 
committee  to  report  the  bill  back  as  it  was 
agreed  upon  by  them.  The  main  point  upon 
which  I  had  been  overruled  was  the  question 
of  population.  In  my  report  accompanying  the 
Toombs  bill,  I  said : 

In  the  opinion  of  your  committee,  whenever  a  con 
stitution  shall  be  formed  in  any  Territory,  prepara 
tory  to  its  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  jus 
tice,  the  genius  of  our  institutions,  the  whole  theory 
of  our  republican  system,  imperatively  demand  that 
the  voice  of  the  people  shall  be  fairly  expressed,  and 
their  will  embodied  in  that  fundamental  law,  without 
fraud,  or  violence,  or  intimidation,  or  any  other  im 
proper  or  unlawful  influence,  and  subject  to  no  other 
restrictions  than  those  imposed  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States. 

There  you  find  that  we  took  it  for  granted 
that  the  constitution  was  to  be  submitted  to  the 
people,  whether  the  bill  was  silent  on  the  sub 
ject  or  not.  Suppose  I  had  reported  it  so,  fol 
lowing  the  example  of  Washington,  Adams, 
Jefferson,  Madison,  Monroe,  Adams,  Jackson, 
Van  Buren,  Harrison,  Tyler,  Polk,  Taylor,  Fill- 
more,  and  Pierce,  would  that  fact  have  been 
evidence  of  conspiracy  to  force  a  constitution 
upon  the  people  of  Kansas  against  their  will? 


1858]          Reply  at  Charleston  151 

If  the  charge  which  Mr.  Lincoln  makes  be  true 
against  me,  it  is  true  against  Zachary  Taylor, 
Millard  Fillmore,  and  every  Whig  president, 
as  well  as  every  Democratic  president,  and 
against  Henry  Clay,  who,  in  the  Senate  or 
House,  for  forty  years  advocated  bills  similar 
to  the  one  I  reported,  no  one  of  them  containing 
a  clause  compelling  the  submission  of  the  con 
stitution  to  the  people.  Are  Mr.  Lincoln  and 
Mr.  Trumbull  prepared  to  charge  upon  all  those 
eminent  men  from  the  beginning  of  the  govern 
ment  down  to  the  present  day,  that  the  absence 
of  a  provision  compelling  submission,  in  the 
various  bills  passed  by  them,  authorizing  the 
people  of  Territories  to  form  State  constitu 
tions,  is  evidence  of  a  corrupt  design  on  their 
part  to  force  a  constitution  upon  an  unwilling 
people? 

I  ask  you  to  reflect  on  these  things,  for  I  tell 
you  that  there  is  a  conspiracy  to  carry  this  elec 
tion  for  the  Black  Republicans  by  slander,  and 
not  by  fair  means.  Mr.  Lincoln's  speech  this 
day  is  conclusive  evidence  of  the  fact.  He  has 
devoted  his  entire  time  to  an  issue  between  Mr. 
Trumbull  and  myself,  and  has  not  uttered  a 
word  about  the  politics  of  the  day.  Are  you 
going  to  elect  Mr.  TrumbulPs  colleague  upon 
an  issue  between  Mr.  Trumbull  and  me?  I 
thought  I  was  running  against  Abraham  Lin- 


152  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Sept.  18 

coin,  that  he  claimed  to  be  my  opponent,  had 
challenged  me  to  a  discussion  of  the  public 
questions  of  the  day  with  him,  and  was  dis 
cussing  these  questions  with  me;  but  it  turns  out 
that  his  only  hope  is  to  ride  into  office  on  Trum- 
bull's  back,  who  will  carry  him  by  falsehood. 

Permit  me  to  pursue  this  subject  a  little  fur 
ther.  An  examination  of  the  record  proves  that 
Trumbuirs  charge — that  the  Toombs  bill  orig 
inally  contained  a  clause  requiring  the  consti 
tution  to  be  submitted  to  the  people — is  false. 
The  printed  copy  of  the  bill  which  Mr.  Lin 
coln  held  up  before  you,  and  which  he  pretends 
contains  such  a  clause,  merely  contains  a  clause 
requiring  a  submission  of  the  land  grant,  and 
there  is  no  clause  in  it  requiring  a  submission 
of  the  constitution.  Mr.  Lincoln  cannot  find 
such  a  clause  in  it.  My  report  shows  that  we 
took  it  for  granted  that  the  people  would  re 
quire  a  submission  of  the  constitution,  and  se 
cure  it  for  themselves.  There  never  was  a 
clause  in  the  Toombs  bill  requiring  the  consti 
tution  to  be  submitted ;  Trumbull  knew  it  at  the 
time,  and  his  speech  made  on  the  night  of  its 
passage  discloses  the  fact  that  he  knew  it  was 
silent  on  the  subject;  Lincoln  pretends,  and  tells 
you  that  Trumbull  has  not  changed  his  evidence 
in  support  of  his  charge  since  he  made  his  speech 
in  Chicago.  Let  us  see.  The  Chicago 


1858]          Reply   at   Charleston  153 

"Times"  took  up  Trumbull's  Chicago  speech, 
compared  it  with  the  official  records  of  Con 
gress,  and  proved  that  speech  to  be  false  in  its 
charge  that  the  original  Toombs  bill  required 
a  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  people. 
Trumbull  then  saw  that  he  was  caught,  and  his 
falsehood  exposed,  and  he  went  to  Alton,  and, 
under  the  very  walls  of  the  penitentiary,  made 
a  new  speech,  in  which  he  predicated  his  assault 
upon  me  in  the  allegation  that  I  had  caused  to 
be  voted  into  the  Toombs  bill  a  clause  which 
prohibited  the  convention  from  submitting  the 
constitution  to  the  people,  and  quoted  what  he 
pretended  was  the  clause.  Now,  has  not  Mr. 
Trumbull  entirely  changed  the  evidence  on 
which  he  bases  his  charge? 

The  clause  which  he  quoted  in  his  Alton  speech 
(which  he  has  published  and  circulated  broad 
cast  over  the  State)  as  having  been  put  into  the 
Toombs  bill  by  me,  is  in  the  following  words: 
"And  until  the  complete  execution  of  this  act, 
no  other  election  shall  be  held  in  said  Terri 
tory." 

Trumbull  says  that  the  object  of  that  amend 
ment  was  to  prevent  the  convention  from  sub 
mitting  the  constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people. 

Now  I  will  show  you  that  when  Trumbull 
made  that  statement  at  Alton  he  knew  it  to  be 
untrue.  I  read  from  Trumbull's  speech  in  the 


154  Stephen   A.    Douglas      [Sept.  18 

Senate  on  the  Toombs  bill  on  the  night  of  its 
passage.     He  then  said: 

There  is  nothing  said  in  this  bill,  so  far  as  I  have 
discovered,  about  submitting  the  constitution,  which 
is  to  be  formed,  to  the  people  for  their  sanction  or 
rejection.  Perhaps  the  convention  will  have  the  right 
to  submit  it,  if  it  should  think  proper;  but  it  is  cer 
tainly  not  compelled  to  do  so  according  to  the  provi 
sions  of  the  bill. 

Thus  you  see  that  Trumbull,  when  the  bill 
was  on  its  passage  in  the  Senate,  said  that  it  was 
silent  on  the  subject  of  submission,  and  that 
there  was  nothing  in  the  bill  one  way  or  the 
other  on  it.  In  his  Alton  speech  he  says  there 
was  a  clause  in  the  bill  preventing  its  submis 
sion  to  the  people,  and  that  I  had  it  voted  in  as 
an  amendment.  Thus  I  convict  him  of  false 
hood  and  slander  by  quoting  from  him  on  the 
passage  of  the  Toombs  bill  in  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  his  own  speech,  made  on  the  night 
of  July  2,  1856,  and  reported  in  the  "Congres 
sional  Globe"  for  the  first  session  of  the  Thirty- 
fourth  Congress,  Vol.  XXXIII.  What  will 
you  think  of  a  man  who  makes  a  false  charge 
and  falsifies  the  records  to  prove  it?  I  will  now 
show  you  that  the  clause  which  Trumbull  says 
was  put  in  the  bill  on  my  motion,  was  never 
put  in  at  all  by  me,  but  was  stricken  out  on  my 


1858]          Reply  at    Charleston  155 

motion  and  another  substituted  in  its  place.  I 
call  your  attention  to  the  same  volume  of  the 
"Congressional  Globe"  to  which  I  have  already 
referred,  page  795,  where  you  will  find  the  fol 
lowing  report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate: 

Mr.  Douglas:  I  have  an  amendment  to  offer  from 
the  Committee  on  Territories.  On  page  8,  section 
n,  strike  out  the  words  "until  the  complete  execu 
tion  of  this  act,  no  other  election  shall  be  held  in  said 
Territory,"  and  insert  the  amendment  which  I  hold 
in  my  hand. 

You  see  from  this  that  I  moved  to  strike  out 
the  very  words  that  Trumbull  says  I  put  in. 
The  Committee  on  Territories  overruled  me  in 
committee,  and  put  the  clause  in;  but  as  soon 
as  I  got  the  bill  back  into  the  Senate,  I  moved 
to  strike  it  out,  and  put  another  clause  in  its 
place.  On  the  same  page  you  will  find  that 
my  amendment  was  agreed  to  unanimously.  I 
then  offered  another  amendment,  recognizing 
the  right  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  under  the 
Toombs  bill,  to  order  just  such  elections  as  they 
saw  proper.  You  can  find  it  on  page  796  of  the 
same  volume.  I  will  read  it: 

Mr.  Douglas :  I  have  another  amendment  to  offer 
from  the  committee,  to  follow  the  amendment  which 
has  been  adopted.  The  bill  reads  now:  "And  until 
the  complete  execution  of  this  act,  no  other  election 


156  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Sept.  18 

shall  be  held  in  said  Territory."  It  has  been  sug 
gested  that  it  should  be  modified  in  this  way:  "And 
to  avoid  conflict  in  the  complete  execution  of  this  act, 
all  other  elections  in  said  Territory  are  hereby  post 
poned  until  such  time  as  said  convention  shall  ap 
point  " ;  so  that  they  can  appoint  the  day  in  the  event 
that  there  should  be  a  failure  to  come  into  the  Union. 

The  amendment  was  unanimously  agreed  to 
— clearly  and  distinctly  recognizing  the  right 
of  the  convention  to  order  just  as  many  elections 
as  they  saw  proper  in  the  execution  of  the  act. 
Trumbull  concealed  in  his  Alton  speech  the 
fact  that  the  clause  he  quoted  had  been  stricken 
out  on  my  motion,  and  the  other  fact  that  this 
other  clause  was  put  in  the  bill  on  my  motion, 
and  made  the  false  charge  that  I  incorporated 
into  the  bill  a  clause  preventing  submission,  in 
the  face  of  the  fact  that,  on  my  motion,  the  bill 
was  so  amended  before  it  passed  as  to  recognize 
in  express  words  the  right  and  duty  of  sub 
mission. 

On  this  record  that  I  have  produced  before 
you,  I  repeat  my  charge  that  Trumbull  did  fal 
sify  the  public  records  of  the  country,  in  order 
to  make  his  charge  against  me,  and  I  tell  Mr. 
Abraham  Lincoln  that  if  he  will  examine  these 
records,  he  will  then  know  what  I  state  is  true ; 
Mr.  Lincoln  has  this  day  indorsed  Mr.  Trum- 
bull's  veracity  after  he  had  my  word  for  it  that 


1858]          Reply   at   Charleston  157 

that  veracity  was  proved  to  be  violated  and  for 
feited  by  the  public  records.  It  will  not  do  for 
Mr.  Lincoln,  in  parading  his  calumnies  against 
me,  to  put  Mr.  Trumbull  between  him  and  the 
odium  and  responsibility  which  justly  attach  to 
such  calumnies.  I  tell  him  that  I  am  as  ready 
to  prosecute  the  indorser  as  the  maker  of  a 
forged  note.  I  regret  the  necessity  of  occupy 
ing  my  time  with  these  petty  personal  matters. 
It  is  unbecoming  the  dignity  of  a  canvass  for  an 
office  of  the  character  for  which  we  are  candi 
dates.  When  I  commenced  the  canvass  at  Chi 
cago,  I  spoke  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  terms  of  kind 
ness,  as  an  old  friend ;  I  said  that  he  was  a  good 
citizen,  of  unblemished  character,  against  whom 
I  had  nothing  to  say.  I  repeated  these  compli 
mentary  remarks  about  him  in  my  successive 
speeches,  until  he  became  the  indorser  for  these 
and  other  slanders  against  me.  If  there  is  any 
thing  personally  disagreeable,  uncourteous,  or 
disreputable  in  these  personalities,  the  sole  re 
sponsibility  rests  on  Mr.  Lincoln,  Mr.  Trum 
bull,  and  their  backers. 

I  will  show  you  another  charge  made  by  Mr. 
Lincoln  against  me,  as  an  offset  to  his  determi 
nation  of  willingness  to  take  back  anything  that 
is  incorrect,  and  to  correct  any  false  statement 
he  may  have  made.  He  has  several  times 
charged  that  the  Supreme  Court,  President 


158  Stephen   A.    Douglas      [Sept.  18 

Pierce,  President  Buchanan,  and  myself,  at  the 
time  I  introduced  the  Nebraska  bill,  in  Janu 
ary,  1854,  at  Washington,  entered  into  a  con 
spiracy  to  establish  slavery  all  over  this  coun 
try.  I  branded  this  charge  as  a  falsehood,  and 
then  he  repeated  it,  asked  me  to  analyze  its 
truth,  and  answer  it.  I  told  him,  "Mr.  Lin 
coln,  I  know  what  you  are  after;  you  want  to 
occupy  my  time  in  personal  matters,  to  prevent 
me  from  showing  up  the  revolutionary  princi 
ples  which  the  Abolition  party — whose  candi 
date  you  are — have  proclaimed  to  the  world." 
But  he  asked  me  to  analyze  his  proof,  and  I  did 
so.  I  called  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  at  the 
time  the  Nebraska  bill  was  introduced,  there 
was  no  such  case  as  the  Dred  Scott  case  pending 
in  the  Supreme  Court,  nor  was  it  brought  there 
for  years  afterward,  and  hence  that  it  was  im 
possible  there  could  have  been  any  such  con 
spiracy  between  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court 
and  the  other  parties  involved.  I  proved  by 
the  record  that  the  charge  was  false,  and  what 
did  he  answer?  Did  he  take  it  back  like  an 
honest  man  and  say  he  had  been  mistaken?  No ; 
he  repeated  the  charge,  and  said,  that  although* 
there  was  no  such  case  pending  that  year,  there 
was  an  understanding  between  the  Democratic 
owners  of  Dred  Scott  and  the  judges  of  the  Su 
preme  Court  and  other  parties  involved,  that 


1858]          Reply   at  Charleston  159 

the  case  should  be  brought  up.  I  then  demand 
ed  to  know  who  those  Democratic  owners  of 
Dred  Scott  were.  He  could  not  or  would  not 
tell ;  he  did  not  know.  In  truth,  there  were  no 
Democratic  owners  of  Dred  Scott  on  the  face 
of  the  land.  Dred  Scott  was  owned  at  that  time 
by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Chaffee,  an  Abolition  member 
of  Congress  from  Springfield,  Massachusetts, 
and  his  wife;  and  Mr.  Lincoln  ought  to  have 
known  that  Dred  Scott  was  so  owned,  for  the 
reason  that  as  soon  as  the  decision  was  an 
nounced  by  the  court,  Dr.  Chaffee  and  his  wife 
executed  a  deed  emancipating  him,  and  put  that 
deed  on  record. 

It  was  a  matter  of  public  record,  therefore, 
that  at  the  time  the  case  was  taken  to  the  Su 
preme  Court,  Dred  Scott  was  owned  by  an 
Abolition  member  of  Congress,  a  friend  of  Lin 
coln's,  and  a  leading  man  of  his  party,  while 
the  defense  was  conducted  by  Abolition  law 
yers;  and  thus  the  Abolitionists  managed  both 
sides  of  the  case.  I  have  exposed  these  facts 
to  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  yet  he  will  not  withdraw 
his  charge  of  conspiracy.  I  now  submit  to  you 
whether  you  can  place  any  confidence  in  a  man 
who  continues  to  make  a  charge  when  its  utter 
falsity  is  proven  by  the  public  records.  I  will 
state  another  fact  to  show  how  utterly  reckless 
and  unscrupulous  this  charge  against  the  Su- 


160  Stephen   A.   Douglas     [Sept.  18 

preme  Court,  President  Pierce,  President  Bu 
chanan,  and  myself  is.  Lincoln  says  that  Presi 
dent  Buchanan  was  in  the  conspiracy  at  Wash 
ington  in  the  winter  of  1854,  when  the  Nebraska 
bill  was  introduced.  The  history  of  this  coun 
try  shows  that  James  Buchanan  was  at  that  time 
representing  this  country  at  the  Court  of  St. 
James,  Great  Britain,  with  distinguished  ability 
and  usefulness,  that  he  had  not  been  in  the  Uni 
ted  States  for  nearly  a  year  previous,  and  that 
he  did  not  return  until  about  three  years  after. 
Yet  Mr.  Lincoln  keeps  repeating  this  charge 
of  conspiracy  against  Mr,  Buchanan  when  the 
public  records  prove  it  to  be  untrue.  Having 
proved  it  to  be  false  as  far  as  the  Supreme  Court 
and  President  Buchanan  are  concerned,  I  drop 
it,  leaving  the  public  to  say  whether  I,  by  my 
self,  without  their  concurrence,  could  have  gone 
into  a  conspiracy  with  them.  My  friends,  you 
see  that  the  object  clearly  is  to  conduct  the  can 
vass  on  personal  matters,  and  hunt  me  down 
with  charges  that  are  proven  to  be  false  by  the 
public  records  of  the  country.  I  am  willing  to 
throw  open  my  whole  public  and  private  life 
to  the  inspection  of  any  man,  or  all  men  who 
desire  to  investigate  it.  Having  resided  among 
you  twenty-five  years,  during  nearly  the  whole 
of  which  time  a  public  man,  exposed  to  more 
assaults,  perhaps  more  abuse,  than  any  man  liv- 


1858]          Reply   at   Charleston  161 

ing  of  my  age,  or  who  ever  did  live,  and  having 
survived  it  all  and  still  commanded  your  con 
fidence,  I  am  willing  to  trust  to  your  knowledge 
of  me  and  my  public  conduct  without  making 
any  more  defense  against  these  assaults. 

Fellow-citizens,  I  came  here  for  the  purpose 
of  discussing  the  leading  political  topics  which 
now  agitate  the  country.  I  have  no  charges  to 
make  against  Mr.  Lincoln,  none  against  Mr. 
Trumbull,  and  none  against  any  man  who  is  a 
candidate,  except  in  repelling  their  assaults 
upon  me.  If  Mr.  Lincoln  is  a  man  of  bad  char 
acter,  I  leave  you  to  find  it  out;  if  his  votes  in 
the  past  are  not  satisfactory,  I  leave  others  to 
ascertain  the  fact;  if  his  course  on  the  Mexican 
war  was  not  in  accordance  with  your  notions 
of  patriotism  and  fidelity  to  our  own  country 
as  against  a  public  enemy,  I  leave  you  to  ascer 
tain  the  fact.  I  have  no  assaults  to  make  upon 
him,  except  to  trace  his  course  on  the  questions 
that  now  divide  the  country  and  engross  so  much 
of  the  people's  attention. 

You  know  that  prior  to  1854  tms  country  was 
divided  into  two  great  political  parties,  one  the 
Whig,  the  other  the  Democratic.  I,  as  a  Dem 
ocrat  for  twenty  years  prior  to  that  time,  had 
been  in  public  discussions  in  this  State  as  an 
advocate  of  Democratic  principles,  and  I  can 
appeal  with  confidence  to  every  old-line  Whig 


162  Stephen   A.    Douglas      [Sept.  18 

within  the  hearing  of  my  voice  to  bear  testi 
mony  that  during  all  that  period  I  fought  you 
Whigs  like  a  man  on  every  question  that  sepa 
rated  the  two  parties.  I  had  the  highest  re 
spect  for  Henry  Clay  as  a  gallant  party-leader, 
as  an  eminent  statesman,  and  as  one  of  the  bright 
ornaments  of  this  country;  but  I  cosncientiously 
believed  that  the  Democratic  party  was  right  on 
the  questions  which  separated  the  Democrats 
from  the  Whigs.  The  man  does  not  live  who 
can  say  that  I  ever  personally  assailed  Henry 
Clay  or  Daniel  Webster,  or  any  one  of  the  lead 
ers  of  that  great  party,  whilst  I  combated  with 
all  my  energy  the  measures  they  advocated. 
What  did  we  differ  about  in  those  days?  Did 
Whigs  and  Democrats  differ  about  this  slavery 
question?  On  the  contrary,  did  we  not,  in  1850, 
unite  to  a  man  in  favor  of  that  system  of  com 
promise  measures  which  Mr.  Clay  introduced, 
Webster  defended,  Cass  supported,  and  Fill- 
more  approved  and  made  the  law  of  the  land 
by  his  signature?  While  we  agreed  on  these 
compromise  measures,  we  differed  about  a  bank, 
the  tariff,  distribution,  the  specie  circular,  the 
subtreasury,  and  other  questions  of  that  descrip 
tion.  Now,  let  me  ask  you,  which  one  of  those 
questions  on  which  Whigs  and  Democrats  then 
differed  now  remains  to  divide  the  two  great 
parties?  Every  one  of  those  questions  which 


1858]          Reply  at    Charleston  163 

divided  Whigs  and  Democrats  has  passed  away; 
the  country  has  outgrown  them;  they  have 
passed  into  history.  Hence  it  is  immaterial 
whether  you  were  right  or  I  was  right  on  the 
bank,  the  subtreasury,  and  other  questions,  be 
cause  they  no  longer  continue  living  issues. 
What,  then,  has  taken  the  place  of  those  ques 
tions  about  which  we  once  differed?  The  slav 
ery  question  has  now  become  the  leading  and 
controlling  issue;  that  question  on  which  you 
and  I  agreed,  on  which  the  Whigs  and  Demo 
crats  united,  has  now  become  the  leading  issue 
between  the  National  Democracy  on  the  one 
side,  and  the  Republican  or  Abolition  party  on 
the  other. 

Just  recollect  for  a  moment  the  memorable 
contest  of  1850,  when  this  country  was  agitated 
from  its  center  to  its  circumference  by  the  slav 
ery  agitation.  All  eyes  in  this  nation  were  then 
turned  to  the  three  great  lights  that  survived 
the  days  of  the  Revolution.  They  looked  to 
Clay,  then  in  retirement  at  Ashland,  and  to 
Webster  and  Cass  in  the  United  States  Senate. 
Clay  had  retired  to  Ashland,  having,  as  he  sup 
posed,  performed  his  mission  on  earth,  and  was 
preparing  himself  for  a  better  sphere  of  exist 
ence  in  another  world.  In  that  retirement  he 
heard  the  discordant,  harsh,  and  grating  sounds 
of  sectional  strife  and  disunion ;  and  he  aroused 


164  Stephen   A.    Douglas      [Sept.  18 

and  came  forth  and  resumed  his  seat  in  the  Sen 
ate,  that  great  theater  of  his  great  deeds.  From 
the  moment  that  Clay  arrived  among  us  he  be 
came  the  leader  of  all  the  Union  men,  whether 
Whigs  or  Democrats.  For  nine  months  we 
each  assembled,  each  day,  in  the  council-cham 
ber,  Clay  in  the  chair,  with  Cass  upon  his  right 
hand  and  Webster  upon  his  left,  and  the  Demo 
crats  and  Whigs  gathered  around,  forgetting 
differences,  and  only  animated  by  one  common 
patriotic  sentiment,  to  devise  means  and  meas 
ures  by  which  we  could  defeat  the  mad  and 
revolutionary  scheme  of  the  Northern  Aboli 
tionists  and  Southern  disunionists.  We  did  de 
vise  those  means.  Clay  brought  them  forward, 
Cass  advocated  them,  the  Union  Democrats  and 
Union  Whigs  voted  for  them,  Fillmore  signed 
them,  and  they  gave  peace  and  quiet  to  the 
country.  Those  compromise  measures  of  1850 
were  founded  upon  the  great  fundamental  prin 
ciple  that  the  people  of  each  State  and  each  Ter 
ritory  ought  to  be  left  free  to  form  and  regulate 
their  own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own 
way,  subject  only  to  the  Federal  Constitution. 
I  will  ask  every  old-line  Democrat  and  every 
old-line  Whig  within  the  hearing  of  my  voice, 
if  I  have  not  truly  stated  the  issues  as  they  then 
presented  themselves  to  the  country.  You  recol 
lect  that  the  Abolitionists  raised  a  howl  of  in- 


1858]         Reply   at   Charleston  165 

dignation,  and  cried  for  vengeance  and  the  de 
struction  of  Democrats  and  Whigs  both  who 
supported  those  compromise  measures  of  1850. 
When  I  returned  home  to  Chicago,  I  found  the 
citizens  inflamed  and  infuriated  against  the 
authors  of  those  great  measures.  Being  the 
only  man  in  that  city  who  was  held  responsible 
for  affirmative  votes  on  all  those  measures,  I 
came  forward  and  addressed  the  assembled  in 
habitants,  defended  each  and  every  one  of  Clay's 
compromise  measures  as  they  passed  the  Senate 
and  the  House  and  were  approved  by  President 
Fillmore.  Previous  to  that  time,  the  city  coun 
cil  had  passed  resolutions  nullifying  the  act  of 
Congress,  and  instructing  the  police  to  with 
hold  all  assistance  from  its  execution;  but  the 
people  of  Chicago  listened  to  my  defense,  and 
like  candid,  frank,  conscientious  men,  when  they 
became  convinced  that  they  had  done  an  injus 
tice  to  Clay,  Webster,  Cass,  and  all  of  us  who 
had  supported  those  measures,  they  repealed 
their  nullifying  resolutions  and  declared  that 
the  laws  should  be  executed  and  the  supremacy 
of  the  Constitution  maintained.  Let  it  always 
be  recorded  in  history,  to  the  immortal  honor 
of  the  people  of  Chicago,  that  they  returned  to 
their  duty  when  they  found  that  they  were 
wrong,  and  did  justice  to  those  whom  they  had 
blamed  and  abused  unjustly.  When  the  legis- 


1 66  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Sept.  18 

lature  of  this  State  assembled  that  year,  they 
proceeded  to  pass  resolutions  approving  the 
compromise  measures  of  1850.  When  the 
Whig  party  assembled  in  1852  at  Baltimore  in 
national  convention  for  the  last  time,  to  nomi 
nate  Scott  for  the  presidency,  they  adopted  as 
a  part  of  their  platform  the  compromise  meas 
ures  of  1850  as  the  cardinal  plank  upon  which 
every  Whig  would  stand  and  by  which  he  would 
regulate  his  future  conduct.  When  the  Demo 
cratic  party  assembled  at  the  same  place,  one 
month  after,  to  nominate  General  Pierce,  we 
adopted  the  same  platform  so  far  as  those  com 
promise  measures  were  concerned,  agreeing  that 
we  would  stand  by  those  glorious  measures  as  a 
cardinal  article  in  the  Democratic  faith.  Thus 
you  see  that  in  1852  all  the  Old  Whigs  and  all 
the  old  Democrats  stood  on  a  common  plank 
so  far  as  this  slavery  question  was  concerned, 
differing  on  other  questions. 

Now,  let  me  ask,  how  is  it  that  since  that  time 
so  many  of  you  Whigs  have  wandered  from  the 
true  path  marked  out  by  Clay  and  carried  out 
broad  and  wide  by  the  great  Webster?  How 
is  it  that  so  many  old-line  Democrats  have  aban 
doned  the  old  faith  of  their  party,  and  joined 
with  Abolitionism  and  Free-soilism  to  overturn 
the  platform  of  the  old  Democrats,  and  the  plat 
form  of  the  Old  Whigs?  You  cannot  deny  that 


1858]          Reply  at  Charleston  167 

since  1854  there  has  been  a  great  revolution  on 
this  one  question.  How  has  it  been  brought 
about?  I  answer  that  no  sooner  was  the  sod 
grown  green  over  the  grave  of  the  immortal 
Clay,  no  sooner  was  the  rose  planted  on  the  tomb 
of  the  god-like  Webster,  than  many  of  the  lead 
ers  of  the  Whig  party,  such  as  Seward,  of.  New 
York,  and  his  followers,  led  off  and  attempted 
to  Abolitionize  the  Whig  party,  and  transfer 
all  your  Old  Whigs,  bound  hand  and  foot,  into 
the  Abolition  camp.  Seizing  hold  of  the  tem 
porary  excitement  produced  in  this  country  by 
the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  the  disap 
pointed  politicians  in  the  Democratic  party 
united  with  the  disappointed  politicians  in  the 
Whig  party,  and  endeavored  to  form  a  new 
party  composed  of  all  the  Abolitionists,  of  Abo- 
litionized  Democrats  and  Abolitionized  Whigs, 
banded  together  in  an  Abolition  platform. 

And  who  led  that  crusade  against  national 
principles  in  this  State?  I  answer,  Abraham 
Lincoln  on  behalf  of  the  Whigs,  and  Lyman 
Trumbull  on  behalf  of  the  Democrats,  formed 
a  scheme  by  which  they  would  Abolitionize  the 
two  great  parties  in  this  State  on  condition  that 
Lincoln  should  be  sent  to  the  United  States  Sen 
ate  in  place  of  General  Shields,  and  that  Trum 
bull  should  go  to  Congress  from  the  Belleville 
district,  until  I  would  be  accommodating  enough 


1 68  Stephen   A.    Douglas      [Sept.  18 

either  to  die  or  resign  for  his  benefit,  and  then 
he  was  to  go  to  the  Senate  in  my  place.  You 
all  remember  that  during  the  year  1854  these 
two  worthy  gentlemen,  Mr.  Lincoln  and  Mr. 
Trumbull,  one  an  old-line  Whig  and  the  other 
an  old-line  Democrat,  were  hunting  in  partner 
ship  to  elect  a  legislature  against  the  Demo 
cratic  party.  I  canvassed  the  State  that  year 
from  the  time  I  returned  home  until  the  elec 
tion  came  off,  and  spoke  in  every  county  that  I 
could  reach  during  that  period.  In  the  north 
ern  part  of  the  State  I  found  Lincoln's  ally,  in 
the  person  of  Fred  Douglass,  the  negro,  preach 
ing  Abolition  doctrines,  while  Lincoln  was  dis 
cussing  the  same  principles  down  here,  and 
Trumbull,  a  little  further  down,  was  advocating 
the  election  of  members  to  the  legislature  who 
would  act  in  concert  with  Lincoln's  and  Fred 
Douglass's  friends.  I  witnessed  an  effort  made 
at  Chicago  by  Lincoln's  then  associates,  and 
now  supporters,  to  put  Fred  Douglass,  the  negro, 
on  the  stand  at  a  Democratic  meeting,  to  reply 
to  the  illustrious  General  Cass  when  he  was 
addressing  the  people  there.  They  had  the 
same  negro  hunting  me  down,  and  they  now 
have  a  negro  traversing  the  northern  counties 
of  the  State,  and  speaking  in  behalf  of  Lincoln. 
Lincoln  knows  that  when  we  were  at  Freeport 
in  joint  discussion,  there  was  a  distinguished 


1 858]          Reply  at  Charleston  169 

colored  friend  of  his  there  then  who  was  on  the 
stump  for  him,  and  who  made  a  speech  there 
the  night  before  we  spoke,  and  another  the  night 
after,  a  short  distance  from  Freeport,  In  favor 
of  Lincoln ;  and  in  order  to  show  how  much  in 
terest  the  colored  brethren  felt  in  the  success 
of  their  brother  Abe,  I  have  with  me  here,  and 
would  read  it  if  it  would  not  occupy  too  much 
of  my  time,  a  speech  made  by  Fred  Douglass 
in  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y.,  a  short  time  since,  to 
a  large  convention,  in  which  he  conjures  all  the 
friends  of  negro  equality  and  negro  citizenship 
to  rally  as  one  man  around  Abraham  Lincoln, 
the  perfect  embodiment  of  their  principles,  and 
by  all  means  to  defeat  Stephen  A.  Douglas. 
Thus  you  find  that  this  Republican  party  in  the 
northern  part  of  the  State  had  colored  gentle 
men  for  their  advocates  in  1854,  m  company 
with  Lincoln  and  Trumbull,  as  they  have  now. 
When,  in  October,  1854,  I  went  down  to 
Springfield  to  attend  the  State  fair,  I  found  the 
leaders  of  this  party  all  assembled  together  un 
der  the  title  of  an  anti-Nebraska  meeting.  It 
was  Black  Republican  up  north,  and  anti-Ne 
braska  at  Springfield.  I  found  Lovejoy,  a  high 
priest  of  Abolitionism,  and  Lincoln,  one  of  the 
leaders  who  was  towing  the  old-line  Whigs  into 
the  Abolition  camp,  and  Trumbull,  Sidney 
Breese,  and  Governor  Reynolds,  all  making 


170  Stephen  A.   Douglas     [Sept.  is 

speeches  against  the  Democratic  party  and  my 
self,  at  the  same  place  and  in  the  same  cause. 

The  same  men  who  are  now  fighting  the  Dem 
ocratic  party  and  the  regular  Democratic  nomi 
nees  in  this  State  were  fighting  us  then.  They 
did  not  then  acknowledge  that  they  had  become 
Abolitionists,  and  many  of  them  deny  it  now. 
Breese,  Dougherty,  and  Reynolds  were  then 
fighting  the  Democracy  under  the  title  of  anti- 
Nebraska  men,  and  now  they  are  fighting  the 
Democracy  under  the  pretense  that  they  are 
simon-pure  Democrats,  saying  that  they  are 
authorized  to  have  every  officeholder  in  Illinois 
beheaded  who  prefers  the  election  of  Douglas 
to  that  of  Lincoln,  or  the  success  of  the  Demo 
cratic  ticket  in  preference  to  the  Abolition 
ticket  for  members  of  Congress,  State  officers, 
members  of  the  legislature,  or  any  office  in  the 
State.  They  canvassed  the  State  against  us  in 
1854,  as  they  are  doing  now,  owning  different 
names  and  different  principles  in  different  lo 
calities,  but  having  a  common  object  in  view, 
viz. :  the  defeat  of  all  men  holding  national  prin 
ciples  in  opposition  to  this  sectional  Abolition 
party.  They  carried  the  legislature  in  1854, 
and  when  it  assembled  in  Springfield  they  pro 
ceeded  to  elect  a  United  States  senator,  all  vot 
ing  for  Lincoln  with  one  or  two  exceptions, 
which  exceptions  prevented  them  from  quite 


1858]          Reply  at    Charleston  171 

electing  him.  And  why  should  they  not  elect 
him?  Had  not  Trumbull  agreed  that  Lincoln 
should  have  Shields's  place?  Had  not  the  Abo 
litionists  agreed  to  it?  Was  it  not  the  solemn 
compact,  the  condition  on  which  Lincoln  agreed 
to  Abolitionize  the  Old  Whigs,  that  he  should 
be  senator?  Still,  Trumbull,  having  control  of 
a  few  Abolitionized  Democrats,  would  not  al 
low  them  all  to  vote  for  Lincoln  on  any  one 
ballot,  and  thus  kept  him  for  some  time  within 
one  or  two  votes  of  an  election,  until  he  worried 
out  Lincoln's  friends,  and  compelled  them  to 
drop  him  and  elect  Trumbull  in  violation  of  the 
bargain.  I  desire  to  read  you  a  piece  of  testi 
mony  in  confirmation  of  the  notoriously  public 
facts  which  I  have  stated  to  you.  Colonel 
James  H.  Matheny,  of  Springfield,  is,  and  for 
twenty  years  has  been,  the  confidential  personal 
and  political  friend  and  manager  of  Mr.  Lin 
coln.  Matheny  is  this  very  day  the  candidate 
of  the  Republican  or  Abolition  party  for  Con 
gress  against  the  gallant  Major  Thomas  L.  Har 
ris,  in  the  Springfield  district,  and  is  making 
speeches  for  Lincoln  and  against  me.  I  will 
read  you  the  testimony  of  Matheny  about  this 
bargain  between  Lincoln  and  Trumbull  when 
they  undertook  to  Abolitionize  Whigs  and 
Democrats  only  four  years  ago.  Matheny,  be 
ing  mad  at  Trumbull  for  having  played  a 


172  Stephen   A.    Douglas      [Sept.  18 

Yankee  trick  on  Lincoln,  exposed  the  bargain 
in  a  public  speech  two  years  ago,  and  I  will 
read  the  published  report*  of  that  speech,  the 
correctness  of  which  Mr.  Lincoln  will  not  deny: 

The  Whigs,  Abolitionists,  Know-nothings^  and 
renegade  Democrats  made  a  solemn  compact  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying  this  State  against  the  Democracy 
on  this  plan :  First,  that  they  would  all  combine  and 
elect  Mr.  Trumbull  to  Congress,  and  thereby  carry 
his  district  for  the  legislature,  in  order  to  throw  all 
the  strength  that  could  be  obtained  into  that  body 
against  the  Democrats.  Second,  that  when  the  legis 
lature  should  meet,  the  officers  of  that  body,  such  as 
speaker,  clerks,  doorkeepers,  etc.,  would  be  given  to 
the  Abolitionists;  and,  third,  that  the  Whigs  were 
to  have  the  United  States  senator.  That,  according 
ly,  in  good  faith  Trumbull  was  elected  to  Congress, 
and  his  district  carried  for  the  legislature,  and  when 
it  convened  the  Abolitionists  got  all  the  officers  of  that 
body,  and  thus  far  the  "  bond  "  was  fairly  executed. 
The  Whigs,  on  their  part,  demanded  the  election  of 
Abraham  Lincoln  to  the  United  States  Senate,  that 
the  bond  might  be  fulfilled,  the  other  parties  to  the 
contract  having  already  secured  to  themselves  all  that 
was  called  for.  But,  in  the  most  perfidious  manner, 
they  refused  to  elect  Mr.  Lincoln ;  and  the  mean,  low 
lived,  sneaking  Trumbull  succeeded,  by  pledging  all 
that  was  required  by  any  party,  in  thrusting  Lincoln 
aside  and  foisting  himself,  an  excrescence  from  the 
rotten  bowels  of  the  Democracy,  into  the  United 


1858]          Reply   at   Charleston  173 

States  Senate;  and  thus  it  has  ever  been,  that  an  hon 
est  man  makes  a  bad  bargain  when  he  conspires  or 
contracts  with  rogues. 

Lincoln's  confidential  friend,  Matheny, 
thought  that  Lincoln  made  a  bad  bargain  when 
he  conspired  with  such  rogues  as  Trumbull  and 
the  Abolitionists.  I  would  like  to  know  wheth 
er  Lincoln  had  as  high  an  opinion  of  TrumbuH's 
veracity  when  the  latter  agreed  to  support  him 
for  the  Senate,  and  then  cheated  him,  as  he  has 
now,  when  Trumbull  comes  forward  and  makes 
charges  against  me.  You  could  not  then  prove 
Trumbull  an  honest  man  either  by  Lincoln,  by 
Matheny,  or  by  any  of  Lincoln's  friends.  They 
charged  everywhere  that  Trumbull  had  cheated 
them  out  of  the  bargain,  and  Lincoln  found, 
sure  enough,  that  it  was  a  bad  bargain  to  con 
tract  and  conspire  with  rogues. 

And  now  I  will  explain  to  you  what  has  been 
a  mystery  all  over  the  State  and  Union,  the  rea 
son  why  Lincoln  was  nominated  for  the  United 
States  Senate  by  the  Black  Republican  conven 
tion. 

You  know  it  has  never  been  usual  for  any 
party,  or  any  convention,  to  nominate  a  can 
didate  for  United  States  senator.  Probably 
this  was  the  first  time  that  such  a  thing  was  ever 
done.  The  Black  Republican  convention  had 
not  been  called  for  that  purpose,  but  to  nomi- 


174  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Sept.  18 

nate  a  State  ticket,  and  every  man  was  surprised 
and  many  disgusted  when  Lincoln  was  nomi 
nated.  Archie  Williams  thought  he  was  enti 
tled  to  it,  Browning  knew  that  he  deserved  it. 
Wentworth  was  certain  that  he  would  get  it, 
Peck  had  hopes,  Judd  felt  sure  that  he  was  the 
man,  and  Palmer  had  claims  and  had  made  ar 
rangements  to  secure  it;  but,  to  their  utter 
amazement,  Lincoln  was  nominated  by  the  con 
vention,  and  not  only  that,  but  he  received  the 
nomination  unanimously,  by  a  resolution  de 
claring  that  Abraham  Lincoln  was  "the  first, 
last,  and  only  choice"  of  the  Republican  party. 
How  did  this  occur?  Why,  because  they  could 
not  get  Lincoln's  friends  to  make  another  bar 
gain  with  "rogues/'  unless  the  whole  party 
would  come  up  as  one  man  and  pledge  their 
honor  that  they  would  stand  by  Lincoln  first, 
last,  and  all  the  time,  and  that  he  should  not  be 
cheated  by  Lovejoy  this  time,  as  he  was  by  Trum- 
bull  before. 

Thus,  by  passing  this  resolution,  the  Abo 
litionists  are  all  for  him,  Lovejoy  and  Farns- 
worth  are  canvassing  for  him,  Giddings  is 
ready  to  come  here  in  his  behalf,  and  the  negro 
speakers  are  already  on  the  stump  for  him,  and 
he  is  sure  not  to  be  cheated  this  time.  He 
would  not  go  into  the  arrangement  until  he  got 
their  bond  for  it,  and  Trumbull  is  compelled 


1858]          Reply   at  Charleston  175 

now  to  take  the  stump,  get  up  false  charges 
against  me,  and  travel  all  over  the  State  to  try 
to  elect  Lincoln,  in  order  to  keep  Lincoln's 
friends  quiet  about  the  bargain  in  which  Trum- 
bull  cheated  them  four  years  ago.  You  see  now 
why  it  is  that  Lincoln  and  Trumbull  are  so 
mighty  fond  of  each  other.  They  have  entered 
into  a  conspiracy  to  break  me  down  by  these  as 
saults  on  my  public  character,  in  order  to  draw 
my  attention  from  a  fair  exposure  of  the  mode 
in  which  they  attempted  to  Abolitionize  the 
Old  Whig  and  the  old  Democratic  parties  and 
lead  them  captive  into  the  Abolition  camp. 

Do  you  not  all  remember  that  Lincoln  went 
around  here  four  years  ago  making  speeches  to 
you,  and  telling  that  you  should  all  go  for  the 
Abolition  ticket,  and  swearing  that  he  was  as 
good  a  Whig  as  he  ever  was ;  and  that  Trumbull 
went  all  over  the  State  making  pledges  to  the  old 
Democrats,  and  trying  to  coax  them  into  the 
Abolition  camp,  swearing  by  his  Maker,  with 
the  uplifted  hand,  that  he  was  still  a  Democrat,, 
always  intended  to  be,  and  that  never  would  he 
desert  the  Democratic  party.  He  got  your  votes 
to  elect  an  Abolition  legislature,  which  passed 
Abolition  resolutions,  attempted  to  pass  Aboli 
tion  laws,  and  sustained  Abolitionists  for  office, 
State  and  national. 

Now,  the  same  game  is  attempted  to  be  played 


176  Stephen   A.    Douglas      [Sept.  18 

over  again.  Then  Lincoln  and  Trumbull  made 
captives  of  the  Old  Whigs  and  old  Democrats 
and  carried  them  into  the  Abolition  camp, 
where  Father  Giddings,  the  high  priest  of 
Abolitionism,  received  and  christened  them 
in  the  dark  cause  just  as  fast  as  they  were 
brought  in.  Giddings  found  the  converts  so 
numerous  that  he  had  to  have  assistance,  and 
he  sent  for  John  P.  Hale,  N.  P.  Banks,  Chase, 
and  other  Abolitionists,  and  they  came  on,  and 
with  Lovejoy  and  Fred  Douglass,  the  negro, 
helped  to  baptize  these  new  converts  as  Lin 
coln,  Trumbull,  Breese,  Reynolds,  and  Dough 
erty  could  capture  them  and  bring  them  within 
the  Abolition  clutch. 

Gentlemen,  they  are  now  around  making  the 
same  kind  of  speeches.  Trumbull  was  down 
in  Monroe  County  the  other  day  assailing  me, 
and  making  a  speech  in  favor  of  Lincoln,  and 
I  will  show  you  under  what  notice  his  meeting 
was  called.  You  see  these  people  are  Black 
Republicans  or  Abolitionists  up  north,  while  at 
Springfield  to-day  they  dare  not  call  their  con 
vention  "Republican,"  but  are  obliged  to  say  "a 
convention  of  all  men  opposed  to  the  Demo 
cratic  party,"  and  in  Monroe  County  and  lower 
Egypt  Trumbull  advertises  their  meetings  as 
follows : 


1858]          Reply  at   Charleston  177 

A  meeting  of  the  Free  Democracy  will  take  place 
at  Waterloo,  on  Monday,  September  I2th  inst., 
whereat  Hon.  Lyman  Trumbull,  Hon.  Jehu  Baker, 
and  others,  will  address  the  people  upon  the  different 
political  topics  of  the  day.  Members  of  all  parties 
are  cordially  invited  to  be  present,  and  hear  and  de 
termine  for  themselves. 

THE  FREE  DEMOCRACY. 

September  9,  1858. 

Did  you  ever  before  hear  of  this  new  party 
called  the  "Free  Democracy?" 

What  object  have  these  Black  Republicans  in 
changing  their  name  in  every  county?  They 
have  one  name  in  the  north,  another  in  the  cen 
ter,  and  another  in  the  south.  When  I  used  to 
practise  law  before  my  distinguished  judicial 
friend  whom  I  recognize  in  the  crowd  before 
me,  if  a  man  was  charged  with  horse-stealing, 
and  the  proof  showed  that  he  went  by  one  name 
in  Stephenson  County,  another  in  Sangamon,  a 
third  in  Monroe,  and  a  fourth  in  Randolph,  we 
thought  that  the  fact  of  his  changing  his  name 
so  often  to  avoid  detection  was  pretty  strong 
evidence  of  his  guilt. 

I  would  like  to  know  why  it  is  that  this 
great  Free-soil  Abolition  party  is  not  willing  to 
avow  the  same  name  in  all  parts  of  the  State? 
If  this  party  believes  that  its  course  is  just, 
why  does  it  not  avow  the  same  principles  in 


178  Stephen   A.   Douglas     [Sept.  18 

the  north  and  in  the  south,  in  the  east  and  in 
the  west,  wherever  the  American  flag  waves 
over  American  soil?  [A  voice:  "The  party 
does  not  call  itself  Black  Republican  in  the 
north."]  Sir,  if  you  will  get  a  copy  of  the 
paper  published  at  Waukegan,  fifty  miles  from 
Chicago,  which  advocates  the  election  of  Mr. 
Lincoln,  and  has  his  name  flying  at  its  mast 
head,  you  will  find  that  it  declares  that  "this 
paper  is  devoted  to  the  cause"  of  Black  Repub 
licanism.  I  had  a  copy  of  it,  and  intended  to 
bring  it  down  here  into  Egypt  to  let  you  see 
what  name  the  party  rallied  under  up  in  the 
northern  part  of  the  State,  and  to  convince  you 
that  their  principles  are  as  different  in  the  two 
sections  of  the  State  as  is  their  name.  I  am 
sorry  I  have  mislaid  it  and  have  not  got  it  here. 
Their  principles  in  the  north  are  jet-black,  in 
the  center  they  are  in  color  a  decent  mulatto, 
and  in  lower  Egypt  they  are  almost  white. 
Why,  I  admired  many  of  the  white  sentiments 
contained  in  Lincoln's  speech  at  Jonesboro,  and 
could  not  help  but  contrast  them  with  the 
speeches  of  the  same  distinguished  orator  made 
in  the  northern  part  of  the  State. 

Down  here  he  denies  that  the  Black  Republi 
can  party  is  opposed  to  the  admission  of  any  more 
slave  States,  under  any  circumstances,  and  says 
that  they  are  willing  to  allow  the  people  of  each 


1 858]          Reply  at   Charleston  179 

State,  when  it  wants  to  come  into  the  Union,  to 
do  just  as  it  pleases  on  the  question  of  slavery. 
In  the  north  you  find  Lovejoy,  their  candidate 
for  Congress  in  the  Bloomington  district;  Farns- 
worth,  their  candidate  in  the  Chicago  district; 
and  Washburne,  their  candidate  in  the  Galena 
district,  all  declaring  that  never  will  they  con 
sent  under  any  circumstances  to  admit  another 
slave  State,  even  if  the  people  want  it.  Thus, 
while  they  avow  one  set  of  principles  up  there, 
they  avow  another  and  entirely  different  set 
down  here.  And  here  let  me  recall  to  Mr.  Lin 
coln  the  scriptural  quotation  which  he  has  ap 
plied  to  the  Federal  Government,  that  a  house 
divided  against  itself  cannot  stand,  and  ask  him 
how  does  he  expect  this  Abolition  party  to  stand 
when  in  one  half  of  the  State  it  advocates  a  set 
of  principles  which  it  has  repudiated  in  the 
other  half? 

I  am  told  that  I  have  but  eight  minutes  more. 
I  would  like  to  talk  to  you  an  hour  and  a  half 
longer,  but  I  will  make  the  best  use  I  can  of 
the  remaining  eight  minutes. 

Mr.  Lincoln  said  in  his  first  remarks  that  he 
was  not  in  favor  of  the  social  and  political 
equality  of  the  negro  with  the  white  man. 
Everywhere  up  north  he  has  declared  that  he 
was  not  in  favor  of  the  social  and  political 
equality  of  the  negro,  but  he  would  not  say 


180  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Sept.  18 

whether  or  not  he  was  opposed  to  negroes  voting 
and  negro  citizenship.  I  want  to  know  wheth 
er  he  is  for  or  against  negro  citizenship?  He 
declared  his  utter  opposition  to  the  Dred  Scott 
decision,  and  advanced  as  a  reason  that  the  court 
had  decided  that  it  was  not  possible  for  a  negro 
to  be  a  citizen  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  If  he  is  opposed  to  the  Dred 
Scott  decision  for  that  reason,  he  must  be  in 
favor  of  conferring  the  right  and  privilege  of 
citizenship  upon  the  negro.  I  have  been  try 
ing  to  get  an  answer  from  him  on  that  point,  but 
have  never  yet  obtained  one,  and  I  will  show 
you  why. 

In  every  speech  he  made  in  the  north  he 
quoted  the  Declaration  of  Independence  to 
prove  that  all  men  were  created  equal,  and  in 
sisted  that  the  phrase  "all  men"  included  the 
negro  as  well  as  the  white  man,  and  that  the 
equality  rested  upon  divine  law.  Here  is  what 
he  said  on  that  point: 

I  should  like  to  know  if,  taking  this  old  Declara 
tion  of  Independence,  which  declares  that  all  men 
are  equal  upon  principle,  and  making  exceptions  to  it, 
where  will  it  stop?  If  one  man  says  it  does  not  mean 
a  negro,  why  may  not  another  say  it  does  not  mean 
some  other  man?  If  that  Declaration  is  not  the 
truth,  let  us  get  the  statute-book  in  which  we  find  it 
and  tear  it  out. 


1858]         Reply   at   Charleston  181 

Lincoln  maintains  there  that  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  asserts  that  the  negro  is  equal 
to  the  white  man,  and  that  under  divine  law; 
and  if  he  believes  so  it  was  rational  for  him  to 
advocate  negro  citizenship,  which,  when  al 
lowed,  puts  the  negro  on  an  equality  under  the 
law.  I  say  to  you  in  all  frankness,  gentlemen, 
that  in  my  opinion  a  negro  is  not  a  citizen,  can 
not  be,  and  ought  not  to  be,  under  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States.  I  will  not  even 
qualify  my  opinion  to  meet  the  declaration  of 
one  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the 
Dred  Scott  case,  "that  a  negro  descended  from 
African  parents,  who  was  imported  into  this 
country  as  a  slave,  is  not  a  citizen,  and  cannot 
be." 

I  say  that  this  government  was  established 
on  the  white  basis.  It  was  made  by  white  men, 
for  the  benefit  of  white  men  and  their  posterity 
forever,  and  never  should  be  administered  by 
any  except  white  men.  I  declare  that  a  negro 
ought  not  to  be  a  citizen,  whether  his  parents 
were  imported  into  this  country  as  slaves  or  not, 
or  whether  or  not  he  was  born  here.  It  does 
not  depend  upon  the  place  a  negro's  parents 
were  born,  or  whether  they  were  slaves  or  not, 
but  upon  the  fact  that  he  is  a  negro,  belonging 
to  a  race  incapable  of  self-government,  and  for 


1 82  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Sept.  18 

that  reason  ought  not  to  be  on  an  equality  with 
white  men. 

My  friends,  I  am  sorry  that  I  have  not  time 
to  pursue  this  argument  further,  as  I  might 
have  done  but  for  the  fact  that  Mr.  Lincoln  com 
pelled  me  to  occupy  a  portion  of  my  time  in 
repelling  those  gross  slanders  and  falsehoods 
that  Trumbull  has  invented  against  me  and  put 
in  circulation.  In  conclusion,  let  me  ask  you 
why  should  this  government  be  divided  by  a 
geographical  line — arraying  all  men  North  in 
one  great  hostile  party  against  all  men  South? 
Mr.  Lincoln  tells  you,  in  his  speech  at  Spring 
field,  that  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot 
stand;  that  this  government,  divided  into  free 
and  slave  States,  cannot  endure  permanently; 
that  they  must  either  be  all  free  or  all  slave,  all 
one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Why  cannot  this 
government  endure  divided  into  free  States  and 
slave  States,  as  our  fathers  made  it? 

When  this  government  was  established  by 
Washington,  Jefferson,  Madison,  Jay,  Hamil 
ton,  Franklin,  and  the  other  sages  and  patriots 
of  that  day,  it  was  composed  of  free  States  and 
slave  States,  bound  together  by  one  common 
Constitution. 

We  have  existed  and  prospered  from  that  day 
to  this  thus  divided,  and  have  increased  with  a 
rapidity  never  before  equaled  in  wealth,  the  ex- 


1858]          Reply   at   Charleston  183 

tension  of  territory,  and  all  the  elements  of 
power  and  greatness,  until  we  have  become  the 
first  nation  on  the  face  of  the  globe. 

Why  can  we  not  thus  continue  to  prosper? 
We  can  if  we  will  live  up  to  and  execute  the  gov 
ernment  upon  those  principles  upon  which  our 
fathers  established  it.  During  the  whole  period 
of  our  existence  Divine  Providence  has  smiled 
upon  us,  and  showered  upon  our  nation  richer 
and  more  abundant  blessings  than  have  ever 
been  conferred  upon  any  other. 


184  Abraham   Lincoln         [Sept.  18 


Mr.  Lincoln's  Rejoinder  in  the  Charleston  Joint 
Debate. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS:     It  follows  as  a 
matter  of  course  that  a  half-hour  answer 
to  a  speech  of  an  hour  and  a  half  can  be 
but  a  very  hurried  one.     I  shall  only  be  able 
to  touch  upon  a  few  of  the  points  suggested  by 
Judge  Douglas,  and  give  them  a  brief  attention, 
while  I  shall  have  to  totally  omit  others  for  the 
want  of  time. 

Judge  Douglas  has  said  to  you  that  he  has 
not  been  able  to  get  from  me  an  answer  to  the 
question  whether  I  am  in  favor  of  negro  citi 
zenship.  So  far  as  I  know,  the  judge  never 
asked  me  the  question  before.  He  shall  have 
no  occasion  to  ever  ask  it  again,  for  I  tell  him 
very  frankly  that  I  am  not  in  favor  of  negro 
citizenship.  This  furnishes  me  an  occasion  for 
saying  a  few  words  upon  the  subject.  I  men 
tioned  in  a  certain  speech  of  mine,  which  has 
been  printed,  that  the  Supreme  Court  had  de 
cided  that  a  negro  could  not  possibly  be  made 
a  citizen,  and  without  saying  what  was  my 
ground  of  complaint  in  regard  to  that,  or  wheth 
er  I  had  any  ground  of  complaint,  Judge  Doug- 


1858]       Rejoinder  at  Charleston         185 

las  has  from  that  thing  manufactured  nearly 
everything  that  he  ever  says  about  my  disposi 
tion  to  produce  an  equality  between  the  negroes 
and  the  white  people.  If  any  one  will  read 
my  speech,  he  will  find  I  mentioned  that  as  one 
of  the  points  decided  in  the  course  of  the  Su 
preme  Court  opinions,  but  I  did  not  state  what 
objection  I  had  to  it.  But  Judge  Douglas  tells 
the  people  what  my  objection  was  when  I  did 
not  tell  them  myself.  Now  my  opinion  is  that 
the  different  States  have  the  power  to  make  a 
negro  a  citizen  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  if  they  choose.  The  Dred  Scott 
decision  decides  that  they  have  not  that  power. 
If  the  State  of  Illinois  had  that  power,  I  should 
be  opposed  to  the  exercise  of  it.  That  is  all  I 
have  to  say  about  it. 

Judge  Douglas  has  told  me  that  he  heard 
my  speeches  north  and  my  speeches  south — that 
he  had  heard  me  at  Ottawa  and  at  Freeport  in 
the  north,  and  recently  at  Jonesboro  in  the  south, 
and  there  was  a  very  different  cast  of  sentiment 
in  the  speeches  made  at  the  different  points.  I 
will  not  charge  upon  Judge  Douglas  that  he 
wilfully  misrepresents  me,  but  I  call  upon  every 
fair-minded  man  to  take  these  speeches  and  read 
them,  and  I  dare  him  to  point  out  any  differ 
ence  between  my  speeches  north  and  south. 
While  I  am  here  perhaps  I  ought  to  say  a  word, 


1 86  Abraham   Lincoln         [Sept.  18 

if  I  have  the  time,  in  regard  to  the  latter  por 
tion  of  the  judge's  speech,  which  was  a  sort  of 
declamation  in  reference  to  my  having  said  I 
entertained  the  belief  that  this  government 
would  not  endure  half  slave  and  half  free.  I 
have  said  so,  and  I  did  not  say  it  without  what 
seemed  to  me  to  be  good  reasons.  It  perhaps 
would  require  more  time  than  I  have  now  to 
set  forth  these  reasons  in  detail;  but  let  me  ask 
you  a  few  questions.  Have  we  ever  had  any 
peace  on  this  slavery  question?  When  are  we 
to  have  peace  upon  it  if  it  is  kept  in  the  posi 
tion  it  now  occupies?  How  are  we  ever  to  have 
peace  upon  it?  That  is  an  important  question. 
To  be  sure,  if  we  will  all  stop  and  allow  Judge 
Douglas  and  his  friends  to  march  on  in  their 
present  career  until  they  plant  the  institution 
all  over  the  nation,  here  and  wherever  else  our 
flag  waves,  and  we  acquiesce  in  it,  there  will  be 
peace.  But  let  me  ask  Judge  Douglas  how  he 
is  going  to  get  the  people  to  do  that?  They 
have  been  wrangling  over  this  question  for  at 
least  forty  years.  This  was  the  cause  of  the 
agitation  resulting  in  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise;  this  produced  the  troubles  at  the  annexa 
tion  of  Texas,  in  the  acquisition  of  the  territory 
acquired  in  the  Mexican  war.  Again,  this  was 
the  trouble  which  was  quieted  by  the  compro 
mise  of  1850,  when  it  was  settled  "forever,"  as 


1858]        Rejoinder  at  Charleston          187 

both  the  great  political  parties  declared  in  their 
national  conventions.  That  "forever"  turned 
out  to  be  just  four  years,  when  Judge  Douglas 
himself  reopened  it. 

When  is  it  likely  to  come  to  an  end?  He  in 
troduced  the  Nebraska  bill  in  1854  to  Put  an~ 
other  end  to  the  slavery  agitation.  He  prom 
ised  that  it  would  finish  it  all  up  immediately, 
and  he  has  never  made  a  speech  since  until  he 
got  into  a  quarrel  with  the  President  about  the 
Lecompton  constitution,  in  which  he  has  not 
declared  that  we  are  just  at  the  end  of  the  slav 
ery  agitation.  But  in  one  speech,  I  think  last 
winter,  he  did  say  that  he  didn't  quite  see  when 
the  end  of  the  slavery  agitation  would  come. 
Now  he  tells  us  again  that  it  is  all  over,  and  the 
people  of  Kansas  have  voted  down  the  Lecomp 
ton  constitution.  How  is  it  over?  That  was 
only  one  of  the  attempts  at  putting  an  end  to 
the  slavery  agitation — one  of  these  "final  set 
tlements."  Is  Kansas  in  the  Union?  Has  she 
formed  a  constitution  that  she  is  likely  to  come 
in  under?  Is  not  the  slavery  agitation  still  an 
open  question  in  that  Territory?  Has  the  vot 
ing  down  of  that  constitution  put  an  end  to  all 
the  trouble?  Is  that  more  likely  to  settle  it 
than  every  one  of  these  previous  attempts  to 
settle  the  slavery  agitation?  Now,  at  this  day 
in  the  history  of  the  world  we  can  no  more  fore- 


1 88  Abraham   Lincoln         [Sept.  18 

tell  where  the  end  of  this  slavery  agitation  will 
be  than  we  can  see  the  end  of  the  world  itself. 
The  Nebraska-Kansas  bill  was  introduced  four 
years  and  a  half  ago,  and  if  the  agitation  is  ever 
to  come  to  an  end,  we  may  say  we  are  four  years 
and  a  half  nearer  the  end.  So,  too,  we  can  say 
we  are  four  years  and  a  half  nearer  the  end  of 
the  world;  and  we  can  just  as  clearly  see  the 
end  of  the  world  as  we  can  see  the  end  of  this 
agitation.  The  Kansas  settlement  did  not  con 
clude  it.  If  Kansas  should  sink  to-day,  and 
leave  a  great  vacant  space  in  the  earth's  sur 
face,  this  vexed  question  would  still  be  among 
us.  I  say,  then,  there  is  no  way  of  putting  an 
end  to  the  slavery  agitation  amongst  us  but  to 
put  it  back  upon  the  basis  where  our  fathers 
placed  it,  no  way  but  to  keep  it  out  of  our  new 
Territories — to  restrict  it  forever  to  the  old 
States  where  it  now  exists.  Then  the  public 
mind  will  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the 
course  of  ultimate  extinction.  That  is  one  way 
of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation. 

The  other  way  is  for  us  to  surrender  and  let 
Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  have  their  way 
and  plant  slavery  over  all  the  States — cease 
speaking  of  it  as  in  any  way  a  wrong — regard 
slavery  as  one  of  the  common  matters  of  prop 
erty,  and  speak  of  negroes  as  we  do  of  our  horses 
and  cattle.  But  while  it  drives  on  in  its  state 


1858]       Rejoinder  at  Charleston         189 

of  progress  as  it  is  now  driving,  and  as  it  has 
driven  for  the  last  five  years,  I  have  ventured 
the  opinion,  and  I  say  to-day,  that  we  will  have 
no  end  to  the  slavery  agitation  until  it  takes 
one  turn  or  the  other.  I  do  not  mean  that  when 
it  takes  a  turn  toward  ultimate  extinction  it  will 
be  in  a  day,  nor  in  a  year,  nor  in  two  years.  I 
do  not  suppose  that  in  the  most  peaceful  way 
ultimate  extinction  would  occur  in  less  than  a 
hundred  years  at  least;  but  that  it  will  occur 
in  the  best  way  for  both  races,  in  God's  own 
good  time,  I  have  no  doubt.  But,  my  friends, 
I  have  used  up  more  of  my  time  than  I  intended 
on  this  point. 

Now,  in  regard  to  this  matter  about  Trum- 
bull  and  myself  having  made  a  bargain  to  sell 
out  the  entire  Whig  and  Democratic  parties  in 
1854,  Judge  Douglas  brings  forward  no  evi 
dence  to  sustain  his  charge,  except  the  speech 
Matheny  is  said  to  have  made  in  1856,  in  which 
he  told  a  cock-and-bull  story  of  that  sort,  upon 
the  same  moral  principles  that  Judge  Douglas 
tells  it  here  to-day.  This  is  the  simple  truth. 
I  do  not  care  greatly  for  the  story,  but  this  is  the 
truth  of  it,  and  I  have  twice  told  Judge  Doug 
las  to  his  face,  that  from  beginning  to  end  there 
is  not  one  word  of  truth  in  it.  I  have  called 
upon  him  for  the  proof,  and  he  does  not  at  all 
meet  me  as  Trumbull  met  him  upon  that  of 


190  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

which  we  were  just  talking,  by  producing  the 
record.  He  did  n't  bring  the  record,  because 
there  was  no  record  for  him  to  bring.  When 
he  asks  if  I  am  ready  to  indorse  Trumbull's 
veracity  after  he  has  broken  a  bargain  with  me, 
I  reply  that  if  Trumbull  had  broken  a  bargain 
with  me,  I  would  not  be  likely  to  indorse  his 
veracity;  but  I  am  ready  to  indorse  his  veracity 
because  neither  in  that  thing,  nor  in  any  other, 
in  all  the  years  that  I  have  known  Lyman 
Trumbull,  have  I  known  him  to  fail  of  his  word 
or  tell  a  falsehood,  large  or  small.  It  is  for 
that  reason  that  I  indorse  Lyman  Trumbull. 

Mr.  James  Brown  [Douglas  postmaster] : 
What  does  Ford's  history  say  about  him? 

Mr.  Lincoln:  Some  gentleman  asks  me 
what  Ford's  history  says  about  him.  My  own 
recollection  is,  that  Ford  speaks  of  Trumbull 
in  very  disrespectful  terms  in  several  portions 
of  his  book,  and  that  he  talks  a  great  deal  worse 
of  Judge  Douglas.  I  refer  you,  sir,  to  the  his 
tory  for  examination. 

Judge  Douglas  complains  at  considerable 
length  about  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  Trum 
bull  and  myself  to  attack  him  personally.  I 
want  to  attend  to  that  suggestion  a  moment.  I 
don't  want  to  be  unjustly  accused  of  dealing 
illiberally  or  unfairly  with  an  adversary,  either 
in  court,  or  in  a  political  canvass,  or  anywhere 


1858]        Rejoinder  at  Charleston         191 

else.  I  would  despise  myself  if  I  supposed  my 
self  ready  to  deal  less  liberally  with  an  adver 
sary  than  I  was  willing  to  be  treated  myself. 
Judge  Douglas,  in  a  general  way,  without  put 
ting  it  in  a  direct  shape,  revives  the  old  charge 
against  me  in  reference  to  the  Mexican  war. 
He  does  not  take  the  responsibility  of  putting 
it  in  a  very  definite  form,  but  makes  a  general 
reference  to  it.  That  charge  is  more  than  ten 
years  old.  He  complains  of  Trumbull  and  my 
self,  because  he  says  we  bring  charges  against 
him  one  or  two  years  old.  He  knows,  too,  that 
in  regard  to  the  Mexican  war  story,  the  more 
respectable  papers  of  his  own  party  throughout 
the  State  have  been  compelled  to  take  it  back 
and  acknowledge  that  it  was  a  lie. 

[Here  Mr.  Lincoln  turned  to  the  crowd  on 
the  platform,  and  selecting  Hon.  Orlando  B. 
Ficklin,  led  him  forward  and  said:] 

I  do  not  mean  to  do  anything  with  Mr.  Fick 
lin,  except  to  present  his  face  and  tell  you  that 
he  personally  knows  it  to  be  a  lie!  He  was  a 
member  of  Congress  at  the  only  time  I  was  in 
Congress,  and  he  knows  that  whenever  there 
was  an  attempt  to  procure  a  vote  of  mine  which 
would  indorse  the  origin  and  justice  of  the  war, 
I  refused  to  give  such  indorsement,  and  voted 
against  it;  but  I  never  voted  against  the  sup 
plies  for  the  army,  and  he  knows,  as  well  as 


192  Abraham  Lincoln         [Sept.  18 

Judge  Douglas,  that  whenever  a  dollar  was 
asked  by  way  of  compensation  or  otherwise,  for 
the  benefit  of  the  soldiers,  I  gave  all  the  votes: 
that  Ficklin  or  Douglas  did,  and  perhaps  more. 

Mr.  Ficklin:  My  friends,  I  wish  to  say  this 
in  reference  to  the  matter.  Mr.  Lincoln  and  my 
self  are  just  as  good  personal  friends  as  Judge 
Douglas  and  myself.  In  reference  to  this  Mex 
ican  war,  my  recollection  is  that  when  Ash- 
mun's  resolution  [amendment]  was  offered  by 
Mr.  Ashmun  of  Massachusetts,  in  which  he  de 
clared  that  the  Mexican  war  was  unnessarily 
and  unconstitutionally  commenced  by  the  Presi 
dent, — my  recollection  is  that  Mr.  Lincoln 
voted  for  that  resolution. 

Mr.  Lincoln:  That  is  the  truth.  Now  you 
all  remember  that  was  a  resolution  censuring 
the  President  for  the  manner  in  which  the  war 
was  begun.  You  know  they  have  charged  that 
I  voted  against  the  supplies,  by  which  I  starved 
the  soldiers  who  were  out  fighting  the  battles 
of  their  country.  I  say  that  Ficklin  knows  it 
is  false.  When  that  charge  was  brought  for 
ward  by  the  Chicago  "Times,"  the  Springfield 
"Register"  [Douglas  organ]  reminded  the 
"Times"  that  the  charge  really  applied  to  John 
Henry;  and  I  do  know  that  John  Henry  is  now 
making  speeches  and  fiercely  battling  for  Judge 
Douglas.  If  the  judge  now  says  that  he  offers  this 


1858]       Rejoinder  at  Charleston         193 

as  a  sort  of  a  set-off  to  what  I  said  to-day  in  ref 
erence  to  Trumbuirs  charge,  then  I  remind  him 
that  he  made  this  charge  before  I  said  a  word 
about  Trumbull's.  He  brought  this  forward 
at  Ottawa,  the  first  time  we  met  face  to  face; 
and  in  the  opening  speech  that  Judge  Douglas 
made,  he  attacked  me  in  regard  to  a  matter  ten 
years  old.  Is  n't  he  a  pretty  man  to  be  whining 
about  people  making  charges  against  him  only 
two  years  old ! 

The  judge  thinks  it  is  altogether  wrong  that 
I  should  have  dwelt  upon  this  charge  of  Trum- 
bulPs  at  all.  I  gave  the  apology  for  doing  so 
in  my  opening  speech.  Perhaps  it  did  n't  fix 
your  attention.  I  said  that  when  Judge  Doug 
las  was  speaking  at  places  where  I  spoke  on 
the  succeeding  day,  he  used  very  harsh  language 
about  this  charge.  Two  or  three  times  after 
ward  I  said  I  had  confidence  in  Judge  Trum 
bull's  veracity  and  intelligence;  and  my  own 
opinion  was,  from  what  I  knew  of  the  character 
of  Judge  Trumbull,  that  he  would  vindicate 
his  position,  and  prove  whatever  he  had  stated 
to  be  true.  This  I  repeated  two  or  three  times ; 
and  then  I  dropped  it  without  saying  anything 
more  on  the  subject  for  weeks — perhaps  a 
month.  I  passed  it  by  without  noticing  it  at 
all  till  I  found  at  Jacksonville  that  Judge  Doug 
las,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  power,  is  not  willing 


194  Abraham   Lincoln         [Sept.  18 

to  answer  Trumbull  and  let  me  alone;  but  he 
comes  out  there  and  uses  this  language:  "He 
should  not  hereafter  occupy  his  time  in  refuting 
such  charges  made  by  Trumbull,  but  that  Lin 
coln  having  indorsed  the  character  of  Trum 
bull  for  veracity,  he  should  hold  him  [Lincoln] 
responsible  for  the  slanders."  What  was  Lin 
coln  to  do?  Did  he  not  do  right,  when  he  had 
the  fit  opportunity  of  meeting  Judge  Douglas 
here,  to  tell  him  he  was  ready  for  the  responsi 
bility?  I  ask  a  candid  audience  whether  in 
doing  thus  Judge  Douglas  was  not  the  assailant 
rather  than  I?  Here  I  meet  him  face  to  face, 
and  say  I  am  ready  to  take  the  responsibility 
so  far  as  it  rests  on  me. 

Having  done  so,  I  ask  the  attention  of  this 
audience  to  the  question  whether  I  have  suc 
ceeded  in  sustaining  the  charge,  and  whether 
Judge  Douglas  has  at  all  succeeded  in  rebutting 
it.  You  all  heard  me  call  upon  him  to  say 
which  of  these  pieces  of  evidence  was  a  forgery. 
Does  he  say  that  what  I  present  here  as  a  copy 
of  the  original  Toombs  bill  is  a  forgery?  Does 
he  say  that  what  I  present  as  a  copy  of  the  bill 
reported  by  himself  is  a  forgery?  Or  what  is 
presented  as  a  transcript  from  the  "Globe,"  of 
the  quotations  from  Bigler's  speech,  is  a  for 
gery?  Does  he  say  the  quotations  from  his  own 
speech  are  forgeries?  Does  he  say  this  tran- 


1858]       Rejoinder  at  Charleston         195 

script  from  Trumbull's  speech  is  a  forgery? 
["He  did  n't  deny  one  of  them."]  I  would 
then  like  to  know  how  it  comes  about  that  when 
each  piece  of  a  story  is  true,  the  whole  story 
turns  out  false?  I  take  it  these  people  have 
some  sense;  they  see  plainly  that  Judge  Doug 
las  in  playing  cuttlefish,  a  small  species  of  fish 
that  has  no  mode  of  defending  itself  when  pur 
sued  except  by  throwing  out  a  black  fluid,  which 
makes  the  water  so  dark  the  enemy  cannot  see 
it,  and  thus  it  escapes.  Is  not  the  judge  play 
ing  the  cuttlefish? 

Now  I  would  ask  very  special  attention  to 
the  consideration  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech  at 
Jacksonville;  and  when  you  shall  read  his 
speech  of  to-day,  I  ask  you  to  watch  closely  and 
see  which  of  these  pieces  of  testimony,  every 
one  of  which  he  says  is  a  forgery,  he  has  shown 
to  be  such.  Not  one  of  them  has  he  shown  to 
be  a  forgery.  Then  I  ask  the  original  ques 
tion,  if  each  of  the  pieces  of  testimony  is  true, 
how  is  it  possible  that  the  whole  is  a  falsehood? 

In  regard  to  TrumbulPs  charge  that  he 
[Douglas]  inserted  a  provision  into  the  bill  to 
prevent  the  constitution  being  submitted  to  the 
people^  what  was  his  answer?  He  comes  here 
and  reads  from  the  "Congressional  Globe"  to 
show  that  on  his  motion  that  provision  was 
struck  out  of  the  bill.  Why,  Trumbull  has  not 


196  Abraham   Lincoln        [Sept.  is 

said  it  was  not  stricken  out,  but  Trumbull  says 
he  [Douglas]  put  it  in,  and  it  is  no  answer  to 
the  charge  to  say  he  afterward  took  it  out.  Both 
are  perhaps  true.  It  was  in  regard  to  that 
thing  precisely  that  I  told  him  he  had  dropped 
the  cub.  Trumbull  shows  you  by  his  intro 
ducing  the  bill  that  it  was  his  cub.  It  is  no 
answer  to  that  assertion  to  call  Trumbull  a  liar 
merely  because  he  did  not  specially  say  that 
Douglas  struck  it  out.  Suppose  that  were  the 
case,  does  it  answer  Trumbull?  I  assert  that 
you  [pointing  to  an  individual]  are  here  to 
day,  and  you  undertake  to  prove  me  a  liar  by 
showing  that  you  were  in  Mattoon  yesterday. 
I  say  that  you  took  your  hat  off  your  head,  and 
you  prove  me  a  liar  by  putting  it  on  your  head. 
That  is  the  whole  force  of  Douglas's  argument. 
Now,  I  want  to  come  back  to  my  original 
question.  Trumbull  says  that  Judge  Douglas 
had  a  bill  with  a  provision  in  it  for  submitting 
a  constitution  to  be  made  to  a  vote  of  the  people 
of  Kansas.  Does  Judge  Douglas  deny  that 
fact?  Does  he  deny  that  the  provision  which 
Trumbull  reads  was  put  in  that  bill?  Then 
Trumbull  says  he  struck  it  out.  Does  he  dare 
to  deny  that?  He  does  not,  and  I  have  the 
right  to  repeat  the  question — why  Judge  Doug 
las  took  it  out?  Bigler  has  said  there  was  a 
combination  of  certain  senators,  among  whom 


1858]       Rejoinder  at  Charleston         197 

he  did  not  include  Judge  Douglas,  by  which 
it  was  agreed  that  the  Kansas  bill  should  have 
a  clause  in  it  not  to  have  the  constitution  formed 
under  it  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  He 
did  not  say  that  Douglas  was  among  them,  but 
we  prove  by  another  source  that  about  the  same 
time  Douglas  comes  into  the  Senate  with  that 
provision  stricken  out  of  the  bill.  Although 
Bigler  cannot  say  they  were  all  working  in  con 
cert,  yet  it  looks  very  much  as  if  the  thing  was 
agreed  upon  and  done  with  a  mutual  under 
standing  after  the  conference ;  and  while  we  do 
not  know  that  it  was  absolutely  so,  yet  it  looks 
so  probable  that  we  have  a  right  to  call  upon 
the  man  who  knows  the  true  reason  why  it  was 
done,  to  tell  what  the  true  reason  was.  When 
he  will  not  tell  what  the  true  reason  was,  he 
stands  in  the  attitude  of  an  accused  thief  who 
has  stolen  goods  in  his  possession,  and  when 
called  to  account  refuses  to  tell  where  he  got 
them.  Not  only  is  this  the  evidence,  but  when 
he  comes  in  with  the  bill  having  the  provision 
stricken  out,  he  tells  us  in  a  speech,  not  then, 
but  since,  that  these  alterations  and  modifica 
tions  in  the  bill  had  been  made  by  him,  in  con 
sultation  with  Toombs,  the  originator  of  the 
bill.  He  tells  us  the  same  to-day.  He  says 
there  were  centain  modifications  made  in  the 
bill  in  committee  that  he  did  not  vote  for.  I 


198  Abraham  Lincoln        [Sept.  18 

ask  you  to  remember  while  certain  amendments 
were  made  which  he  disapproved  of,  but  which 
a  majority  of  the  committee  voted  in,  he  has 
himself  told  us  that  in  this  particular  the  altera 
tions  and  modifications  were  made  by  him  upon 
consultation  with  Toombs.  We  have  his  own 
word  that  these  alterations  were  made  by  him 
and  not  by  the  committee. 

Now,  I  ask  what  is  the  reason  Judge  Doug 
las  is  so  chary  about  coming  to  the  exact  ques 
tion?  What  is  the  reason  he  will  not  tell  you 
anything  about  how  it  was  made,  by  whom  it 
was  made,  or  that  he  remembers  it  being  made 
at  all?  Why  does  he  stand  playing  upon  the 
meaning  of  words,  and  quibbling  around  the 
edges  of  the  evidence?  If  he  can  explain  all 
this,  but  leaves  it  unexplained,  I  have  a  right 
to  infer  that  Judge  Douglas  understood  it  was 
the  purpose  of  his  party,  in  engineering  that  bill 
through,  to  make  a  constitution,  and  have  Kan 
sas  come  into  the  Union  with  that  constitution, 
without  its  being  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  peo 
ple.  If  he  will  explain  his  action  on  this  ques 
tion,  by  giving  a  better  reason  for  the  facts  that 
happened  than  he  has  done,  it  will  be  satisfac 
tory.  But  until  he  does  that — until  he  gives  a 
better  or  more  plausible  reason  than  he  has  of 
fered  against  the  evidence  in  the  case — I  sug 
gest  to  him  it  will  not  avail  him  at  all  that  he 


1858]       Rejoinder  at  Charleston         199 

swells  himself  up,  takes  on  dignity,  and  calls 
people  liars.  Why,  sir,  there  is  not  a  word  in 
Trumbull's  speech  that  depends  on  Trumbuirs 
veracity  at  all.  He  has  only  arrayed  the  evi 
dence  and  told  you  what  follows  as  a  matter  of 
reasoning.  There  is  not  a  statement  in  the 
whole  speech  that  depends  on  Trumbull's  word. 
If  you  have  ever  studied  geometry,  you  remem 
ber  that  by  a  course  of  reasoning  Euclid  proves 
that  all  the  angles  in  a  triangle  are  equal  to  two 
right  angles.  Euclid  has  shown  you  how  to 
work  it  out.  Now,  if  you  undertake  to  dis 
prove  that  proposition,  and  to  show  that  it  is 
erroneous,  would  you  prove  it  to  be  false  by 
calling  Euclid  a  liar?  They  tell  me  that  my 
time  is  out,  and  therefore  I  close. 

ORDER  FOR  FURNITURE,  September  25,  1858 
My  old  friend  Henry  Chew,  the  bearer  of 
this,  is  in  a  strait  for  some  furniture  to  com 
mence  housekeeping.  If  any  person  will  fur 
nish  him  twenty-five  dollars'  worth,  and  he  does 
not  pay  for  it  by  the  ist  of  January  next,  I  will. 

A.  LINCOLN. 

HON.  A.  LINCOLN,  SPRINGFIELD,  ILLINOIS. 

My  Dear  Friend:  I  herewith  inclose  your  order 
which  you  gave  your  friend  Henry  Chew.  You  will 
please  send  me  a  draft  for  the  same  and  oblige  yours, 
URBANA,  February  16,  1859.  S.  LITTLE. 


200  Abraham  Lincoln          [Oct. 


FRAGMENT:    NOTES  FOR  SPEECHES,  [October 
i,  1858?] 

BUT  there  is  a  larger  issue  than  the  mere 
question  of  whether  the  spread  of  negro 
slavery  shall  or  shall  not  be  prohibited 
by  Congress.  That  larger  issue  is  stated  by  the 
Richmond  "Enquirer,"  a  Buchanan  paper  in  the 
South,  in  the  language  I  now  read.  It  is  also 
stated  by  the  New  York  "Day-book,"  a  Buchan 
an  paper  in  the  North,  in  this  language. — And 
in  relation  to  indigent  white  children,  the  same 
Northern  paper  says. — In  support  of  the  Ne 
braska  bill,  on  its  first  discussion  in  the  Senate, 
Senator  Pettit  of  Indiana  declared  the  equality 
of  men,  as  asserted  in  our  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,  to  be  a  "self-evident  lie."  In  his  nu 
merous  speeches  now  being  made  in  Illinois, 
Senator  Douglas  regularly  argues  against  the 
doctrine  of  the  equality  of  men;  and  while  he 
does  not  draw  the  conclusion  that  the  superiors 
ought  to  enslave  the  inferiors,  he  evidently 
wishes  his  hearers  to  draw  that  conclusion.  He 
shirks  the  responsibility  of  pulling  the  house 
down,  but  he  digs  under  it  that  it  may  fall  of  its 
own  weight.  Now,  it  is  impossible  to  not  see 


1858]  Notes  for   Speeches  201 

that  these  newspapers  and  senators  are  laboring 
at  a  common  object,  and  in  so  doing  are  truly 
representing  the  controlling  sentiment  of  their 
party. 

It  is  equally  impossible  to  not  see  that  that 
common  object  is  to  subvert,  in  the  public  mind, 
and  in  practical  administration,  our  old  and 
only  standard  of  free  government,  that  "all  men 
are  created  equal,"  and  to  substitute  for  it  some 
different  standard.  What  that  substitute  is  to 
be  is  not  difficult  to  perceive.  It  is  to  deny 
the  equality  of  men,  and  to  assert  the  natural, 
moral,  and  religious  right  of  one  class  to  en 
slave  another. 

FRAGMENT:    NOTES  FOR  SPEECHES,  [October 
i,  1858?] 

Suppose  it  is  true  that  the  negro  is  inferior 
to  the  white  in  the  gifts  of  nature;  is  it  not  the 
exact  reverse  of  justice  that  the  white  should 
for  that  reason  take  from  the  negro  any  part  of 
the  little  which  he  has  had  given  him?  "Give 
to  him  that  is  needy"  is  the  Christian  rule  of 
charity;  but  "Take  from  him  that  is  needy"  is 
the  rule  of  slavery. 

Pro-slavery  Theology. 

The  sum  of  pro-slavery  theology  seems  to  be 
this:  "Slavery  is  not  universally  right,  nor  yet 


202  Abraham   Lincoln          [Oct.  i 

universally  wrong;  it  is  better  for  some  people 
to  be  slaves ;  and,  in  such  cases,  it  is  the  will  of 
God  that  they  be  such." 

Certainly  there  is  no  contending  against  the 
will  of  God ;  but  still  there  is  some  difficulty  in 
ascertaining  and  applying  it  to  particular  cases. 
For  instance,  we  will  suppose  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ross 
has  a  slave  named  Sambo,  and  the  question  is, 
"Is  it  the  will  of  God  that  Sambo  shall  remain 
a  slave,  or  be  set  free?"  The  Almighty  gives 
no  audible  answer  to  the  question,  and  his  reve 
lation,  the  Bible,  gives  none — or  at  most  none 
but  such  as  admits  of  a  squabble  as  to  its  mean 
ing;  no  one  thinks  of  asking  Sambo's  opinion 
on  it. 

So  at  last  it  comes  to  this,  that  Dr.  Ross  is 
to  decide  the  question;  and  while  he  considers 
it,  he  sits  in  the  shade,  with  gloves  on  his  hands, 
and  subsists  on  the  bread  that  Sambo  is  earning 
in  the  burning  sun.  If  he  decides  that  God 
wills  Sambo  to  continue  a  slave,  he  thereby  re 
tains  his  own  comfortable  position;  but  if  he 
decides  that  God  wills  Sambo  to  be  free,  he 
thereby  has  to  walk  out  of  the  shade,  throw  of! 
his  gloves,  and  delve  for  his  own  bread.  Will 
Dr.  Ross  be  actuated  by  the  perfect  impartiality 
which  has  ever  been  considered  most  favorable 
to  correct  decisions? 


1858]  Notes  for  Speeches  203 

FRAGMENT:    NOTES  FOR  SPEECHES,  [October 
i,  1858?] 

At  Freeport  I  propounded  four  distinct  inter 
rogations  to  Judge  Douglas,  all  which  he  as 
sumed  to  answer.  I  say  he  assumed  to  answer 
them ;  for  he  did  not  very  distinctly  answer  any 
of  them. 

To  the  first,  which  is  in  these  words,  "If  the 
people  of  Kansas  shall,  by  means  entirely  un 
objectionable  in  all  other  respects,  adopt  a  State 
constitution,  and  ask  admission  into  the  Union 
under  it,  before  they  have  the  requisite  number 
of  inhabitants  according  to  the  English  bill, — 
some  ninety-three  thousand, — will  you  vote  to 
admit  them?"  the  judge  did  not  answer  "Yes" 
or  "No,"  "I  would"  or  "I  would  not,"  nor  did 
he  answer  in  any  other  such  distinct  way.  But 
he  did  so  answer  that  I  infer  he  would  vote  for 
the  admission  of  Kansas  in  the  supposed  case 
stated  in  the  interrogatory — that,  other  objec 
tions  out  of  the  way,  he  would  vote  to  admit 
Kansas  before  she  had  the  requisite  population 
according  to  the  English  bill.  I  mention  this 
now  to  elicit  an  assurance  that  I  correctly  un 
derstood  the  judge  on  this  point. 

To  my  second  interrogatory,  which  is  in  these 
words,  "Can  the  people  of  a  United  States  Ter 
ritory,  in  any  lawful  way,  against  the  wrish  of 


204  Abraham   Lincoln  [Oct.  i 

any  citizen  of  the  United  States,  exclude  slav 
ery  from  their  limits,  prior  to  the  formation  of 
a  State  constitution?"  the  judge  answers  that 
they  can,  and  he  proceeds  to  show  how  they  can 
exclude  it.  The  how,  as  he  gives  it,  is  by  with 
holding  friendly  legislation  and  adopting  un 
friendly  legislation.  As  he  thinks,  the  people 
still  can,  by  doing  nothing  to  help  slavery  and 
by  a  little  unfriendly  leaning  against  it,  exclude 
it  from  their  limits.  This  is  his  position.  This 
position  and  the  Dred  Scott  decision  are  abso 
lutely  inconsistent.  The  judge  furiously  in 
dorses  the  Dred  Scott  decision;  and  that  deci 
sion  holds  that  the  United  States  Constitution 
guarantees  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States 
the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  the  Territories,  and 
that  neither  Congress  nor  a  territorial  legisla 
ture  can  destroy  or  abridge  that  right.  In  the 
teeth  of  this,  where  can  the  judge  find  room 
for  his  unfriendly  legislation  against  their 
right?  The  members  of  a  territorial  legisla 
ture  are  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  How  dare  they  legislate  un 
friendly  to  a  right  guaranteed  by  that  Consti 
tution?  And  if  they  should  how  quickly  would 
the  courts  hold  their  work  to  be  unconstitu 
tional  and  void!  But  doubtless  the  judge's 
chief  reliance  to  sustain  his  proposition  that  the 
people  can  exclude  slavery,  is  based  upon  non- 


1858]  Notes  for   Speeches  205 

action — upon  withholding  friendly  legislation. 
But  can  members  of  a  territorial  legislature, 
having  sworn  to  support  the  United  States  Con 
stitution,  conscientiously  withhold  necessary 
legislative  protection  to  a  right  guaranteed  by 
that  Constitution? 

Again,  will  not  the  courts,  without  territorial 
legislation,  find  a  remedy  for  the  evasion  of  a 
right  guaranteed  by  the  United  States  Consti 
tution?  It  is  a  maxim  of  the  courts  that  "there 
is  no  right  without  a  remedy."  But,  as  a  mat 
ter  of  fact,  non-action,  both  legislative  and  ju 
dicial,  will  not  exclude  slavery  from  any  place. 
It  is  of  record  that  Dred  Scott  and  his  family 
were  held  in  actual  slavery  in  Kansas  without 
any  friendly  legislation  or  judicial  assistance. 
It  is  well  known  that  other  negroes  were  held 
in  actual  slavery  at  the  military  post  in  Kansas 
under  precisely  the  same  circumstances.  This 
was  not  only  done  without  any  friendly  legisla 
tion,  but  in  direct  disregard  of  the  congressional 
prohibition, — the  Missouri  Compromise, — then 
supposed  to  be  valid,  thus  showing  that  it  re 
quires  positive  law  to  be  both  made  and  exe 
cuted  to  keep  actual  slavery  out  of  any  Terri 
tory  where  any  owner  chooses  to  take  it. 
Slavery  having  actually  gone  into  a  territory 
to  some  extent,  without  local  legislation  in 
its  favor,  and  against  congressional  prohibition, 


206  Abraham   Lincoln          [Oct.  i 

how  much  more  will  it  go  there  now  that  by  a 
judicial  decision  that  congressional  prohibition 
is  swept  away,  and  the  constitutional  guaranty 
of  property  declared  to  apply  to  slavery  in  the 
Territories. 

But  this  is  not  all.  Slavery  was  originally 
planted  on  this  continent  without  the  aid  of 
friendly  legislation.  History  proves  this.  After 
it  was  actually  in  existence  to  a  sufficient  extent 
to  become,  in  some  sort,  a  public  interest,  it 
began  to  receive  legislative  attention,  but  not 
before.  How  futile,  then,  is  the  proposition 
that  the  people  of  a  Territory  can  exclude  slav 
ery  by  simply  not  legislating  in  its  favor. 
Learned  disputants  use  what  they  call  the  argu- 
mentum  ad  hominem — a  course  of  argument 
which  does  not  intrinsically  reach  the  issue,  but 
merely  turns  the  adversary  against  himself. 
There  are  at  least  two  arguments  of  this  sort 
which  may  easily  be  turned  against  Judge 
Douglas's  proposition  that  the  people  of  a  Ter 
ritory  can  lawfully  exclude  slavery  from  their 
limits  prior  to  forming  a  State  constitution.  In 
his  report  of  the  I2th  of  March,  1856,  on  page 
28,  Judge  Douglas  says:  "The  sovereignty  of 
a  Territory  remains  in  abeyance,  suspended  in 
the  United  States,  in  trust  for  the  people,  until 
they  shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a 
State."  If  so, — if  they  have  no  active  living 


1858]  Notes  for  Speeches  207 

sovereignty, — how  can  they  readily  enact  the 
judge's  unfriendly  legislation  to  slavery? 

But  in  1856,  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  Judge 
Trumbull  asked  Judge  Douglas  the  direct  ques 
tion,  "Can  the  people  of  a  Territory  exclude 
slavery  prior  to  forming  a  State  constitution?" 
— and  Judge  Douglas  answered,  "That  is  a  ques 
tion  for  the  Supreme  Court."  I  think  he  made 
the  same  answer  to  the  same  question  more  than 
once.  But  now,  when  the  Supreme  Court  has 
decided  that  the  people  of  a  Territory  cannot 
so  exclude  slavery,  Judge  Douglas  shifts  his 
ground,  saying  the  people  can  exclude  it,  and 
thus  virtually  saying  it  is  not  a  question  for  the 
Supreme  Court. 

I  am  aware  Judge  Douglas  avoids  admitting 
in  direct  terms  that  the  Supreme  Court  have 
decided  against  the  power  of  the  people  of  a 
Territory  to  exclude  slavery.  He  also  avoids 
saying  directly  that  they  have  not  so  decided; 
but  he  labors  to  leave  the  impression  that  he 
thinks  they  have  not  so  decided.  For  instance, 
in  his  Springfield  speech  of  July  17,  1858, 
Judge  Douglas,  speaking  of  me  says:  "He 
infers  that  it  [the  court]  would  decide  that  the 
territorial  legislatures  could  not  prohibit  slav 
ery.  I  will  not  stop  to  inquire  whether  the 
courts  will  carry  the  decision  that  far  or  not." 
The  court  has  already  carried  the  decision  ex- 


Abraham  Lincoln          [Oct.  i 

actly  that  far,  and  I  must  say  I  think  Judge 
Douglas  very  well  knows  it  has.  After  stating 
that  Congress  cannot  prohibit  slavery  in  the 
Territories,  the  court  adds :  "And  if  Congress 
itself  cannot  do  this,  if  it  be  beyond  the  powers 
conferred  on  the  Federal  Government,  it  will 
be  admitted,  we  presume,  that  it  could  not 
authorize  a  territorial  government  to  exercise 
them,  it  could  confer  no  power  on  any  local 
government,  established  by  its  authority,  to  vio 
late  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution." 

Can  any  mortal  man  misunderstand  this  lan 
guage?  Does  not  Judge  Douglas  equivocate 
when  he  pretends  not  to  know  that  the  Supreme 
Court  has  decided  that  the  people  of  a  Territory 
cannot  exclude  slavery  prior  to  forming  a  State 
constitution? 

My  third  interrogatory  to  the  judge  is  in  these 
words:  "If  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  shall  decide  that  States  cannot  exclude 
slavery  from  their  limits,  are  you  in  favor  of 
acquiescing  in,  adopting,  and  following  such 
decision  as  a  rule  of  political  action?"  To  this 
question  the  judge  gives  no  answer  whatever. 
He  disposes  of  it  by  an  attempt  to  ridicule  the 
idea  that  the  Supreme  Court  will  ever  make 
such  a  decision.  When  Judge  Douglas  is 
drawn  up  to  a  distinct  point,  there  is  significance 
in  all  he  says,  and  in  all  he  omits  to  say.  In 


1858]  Notes  for   Speeches  209 

this  case  he  will  not,  on  the  one  hand,  face  the 
people  and  declare  he  will  support  such  a  de 
cision  when  made,  nor  on  the  other  will  he 
trammel  himself  by  saying  he  will  not  support 
it. 

Now  I  propose  to  show,  in  the  teeth  of  Judge 
Douglas's  ridicule,  that  such  a  decision  does 
logically  and  necessarily  follow  the  Dred  Scott 
decision.  In  that  case  the  court  holds  that  Con 
gress  can  legislate  for  the  Territories  in  some 
respects,  and  in  others  it  cannot;  that  it  cannot 
prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories,  because  to 
do  so  would  infringe  the  "right  of  property" 
guaranteed  to  the  citizen  by  the  fifth  amend 
ment  to  the  Constitution,  which  provides  that 
"no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or 
property  without  due  process  of  law."  Un 
questionably  there  is  such  a  guaranty  in  the 
Constitution,  whether  or  not  the  court  right 
fully  apply  it  in  this  case.  I  propose  to  show, 
beyond  the  power  of  quibble,  that  that  guaranty 
applies  with  all  the  force,  if  not  more,  to  States 
than  it  does  to  Territories.  The  answers  to  two 
questions  fix  the  whole  thing:  to  whom  is  this 
guaranty  given?  and  against  whom  does  it  pro 
tect  those  to  whom  it  is  given?  The  guaranty 
makes  no  distinction  between  persons  in  the 
States  and  those  in  the  Territories ;  it  is  given 
to  persons  in  the  States  certainly  as  much  as, 


2io  Abraham  Lincoln          [Oct.  i 

if  not  more  than,  to  those  in  the  Territories. 
"No  person,"  under  the  shadow  of  the  Consti 
tution,  "shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or 
property  without  due  process  of  law." 

Against  whom  does  this  guaranty  protect  the 
rights  of  property?  Not  against  Congress 
alone,  but  against  the  world — against  State  con 
stitutions  and  laws,  as  well  as  against  acts  of 
Congress.  The  United  States  Constitution  is 
the  supreme  law  of  the  land;  this  guaranty  of 
property  is  expressly  given  in  that  Constitution, 
in  that  supreme  law;  and  no  State  constitution 
or  law  can  override  it.  It  is  not  a  case  where 
power  over  the  subject  is  reserved  to  the  States, 
because  it  is  not  expressly  given  to  the  General 
Government;  it  is  a  case  where  the  guaranty  is 
expressly  given  to  the  individual  citizen,  in  and 
by  the  organic  law  of  the  General  Government; 
and  the  duty  of  maintaining  that  guaranty  is 
imposed  upon  that  General  Government,  over 
riding  all  obstacles. 

The  following  is  the  article  of  the  Constitu 
tion  containing  the  guaranty  of  property  upon 
which  the  Dred  Scott  decision  is  based: 

ARTICLE  V.  No  person  shall  be  held  to  answer 
for  a  capital  or  otherwise  infamous  crime,  unless  on  a 
presentment  or  indictment  by  a  grand  jury,  except  in 
cases  arising  in  the  land  or  naval  forces,  or  in  the 


1858]  Notes  for  Speeches  211 

militia  when  in  actual  service,  in  time  of  war  or  public 
danger;  nor  shall  any  person  be  subject  for  the  same 
offense  to  be  twice  put  in  jeopardy  of  life  or  limb; 
nor  shall  be  compelled,  in  any  criminal  case,  to  be  a 
witness  against  himself,  nor  be  deprived  of  life,  lib 
erty,  or  property  without  due  process  of  law;  nor 
shall  private  property  be  taken  for  public  use  without 
just  compensation. 

Suppose,  now,  a  provision  in  a  State  consti 
tution  should  negative  all  the  above  proposi 
tions,  declaring  directly  or  substantially  that 
"any  person  may  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty, 
or  property  without  due  process  of  law,"  a  di 
rect  contradiction — collision — would  be  pro 
nounced  between  the  United  States  Constitution 
and  such  State  constitution.  And  can  there  be 
any  doubt  but  that  which  is  declared  to  be  the 
supreme  law  would  prevail  over  the  other  to 
the  extent  of  the  collision?  Such  State  consti 
tution  would  be  unconstitutional. 

There  is  no  escape  from  this  conclusion  but 
in  one  way,  and  that  is  to  deny  that  the  Supreme 
Court,  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  properly  applies 
this  constitutional  guaranty  of  property.  The 
Constitution  itself  impliedly  admits  that  a  per 
son  may  be  deprived  of  property  by  "due  pro 
cess  of  law,"  and  the  Republicans  hold  that  if 
there  be  a  law  of  Congress  or  territorial  legisla 
ture  telling  the  slaveholder  in  advance  that  he 


212  Abraham   Lincoln          [°ct-  * 

shall  not  bring  his  slave  into  the  Territory  upon 
pain  of  forfeiture,  and  he  still  will  bring  him, 
he  will  be  deprived  of  his  property  in  such 
slave  by  "due  process  of  law."  And  the  same 
would  be  true  in  the  case  of  taking  a  slave  into 
a  State  against  a  State  constitution  or  law  pro 
hibiting  slavery. 

FRAGMENT:    NOTES  FOR  SPEECHES,  [October 
i,  1858?] 

.  .  .  When  Douglas  ascribes  such  to  me, 
he  does  so,  not  by  argument,  but  by  mere  bur 
lesque  on  the  art  and  name  of  argument — by 
such  fantastic  arrangements  of  words  as  prove 
"horse-chestnuts  to  be  chestnut  horses."  In  the 
main  I  shall  trust  an  intelligent  community  to 
learn  my  objects  and  aims  from  what  I  say  and 
do  myself,  rather  than  from  what  Judge  Doug 
las  may  say  of  me.  But  I  must  not  leave  the 
judge  just  yet.  When  he  has  burlesqued  me 
into  a  position  which  I  never  thought  of  assum 
ing  myself,  he  will,  in  the  most  benevolent  and 
patronizing  manner  imaginable,  compliment 
me  by  saying  "he  has  no  doubt  I  am  perfectly 
conscientious  in  it."  I  thank  him  for  that  word 
"conscientious."  It  turns  my  attention  to  the 
wonderful  evidences  of  conscience  he  manifests. 
When  he  assumes  to  be  the  first  discoverer  and 
sole  advocate  of  the  right  of  a  people  to  govern 


1858]  Notes  for  Speeches  213 

themselves,  he  is  conscientious.  When  he  af 
fects  to  understand  that  a  man,  putting  a  hun 
dred  slaves  through  under  the  lash,  is  simply 
governing  himself,  he  is  more  conscientious. 
When  he  affects  not  to  know  that  the  Dred  Scott 
decision  forbids  a  territorial  legislature  to  ex 
clude  slavery,  he  is  most  conscientious.  When, 
as  in  his  last  Springfield  speech,  he  declares  that 
I  say,  unless  I  shall  play  my  batteries  success 
fully,  so  as  to  abolish  slavery  in  every  one  of 
the  States,  the  Union  shall  be  dissolved,  he  is 
absolutely  bursting  with  conscience.  It  is  noth 
ing  that  I  have  never  said  any  such  thing. 
With  some  men  it  might  make  a  difference;  but 
consciences  differ  in  different  individuals. 
Judge  Douglas  has  a  greater  conscience  than 
most  men.  It  corresponds  with  his  other  points 
of  greatness.  Judge  Douglas  amuses  himself 
by  saying  I  wish  to  go  into  the  Senate  on  my 
qualifications  as  a  prophet.  He  says  he  has 
known  some  other  prophets,  and  does  not  think 
very  well  of  them.  Well,  others  of  us  have  also 
known  some  prophets.  We  know  one  who 
nearly  five  years  ago  prophesied  that  the  "Ne 
braska  bill"  would  put  an  end  to  slavery  agita 
tion  in  next  to  no  time — one  who  has  renewed 
that  prophecy  at  least  as  often  as  quarter-yearly 
ever  since;  and  still  the  prophecy  has  not  been 
fulfilled.  That  one  might  very  well  go  out  of 


214  Abraham   Lincoln          [Oct.  i 

the  Senate  on  his  qualifications  as  a  false 
prophet. 

Allow  me  now,  in  my  own  way,  to  state  with 
what  aims  and  objects  I  did  enter  upon  this 
campaign.  I  claim  no  extraordinary  exemp 
tion  from  personal  ambition.  That  I  like  pre 
ferment  as  well  as  the  average  of  men  may  be 
admitted.  But  I  protest  I  have  not  entered 
upon  this  hard  contest  solely,  or  even  chiefly, 
for  a  mere  personal  object.  I  clearly  see,  as 
I  think,  a  powerful  plot  to  make  slavery  uni 
versal  and  perpetual  in  this  nation.  The  effort 
to  carry  that  plot  through  will  be  persistent  and 
long  continued,  extending  far  beyond  the  sena 
torial  term  for  which  Judge  Douglas  and  I  are 
just  now  struggling.  I  enter  upon  the  contest 
to  contribute  my  humble  and  temporary  mite 
in  opposition  to  that  effort. 

At  the  Republican  State  convention  at 
Springfield  I  made  a  speech.  That  speech  has 
been  considered  the  opening  of  the  canvass  on 
my  part.  In  it  I  arrange  a  string  of  incontesta 
ble  facts  which,  I  think,  prove  the  existence  of 
a  conspiracy  to  nationalize  slavery.  The  evi 
dence  was  circumstantial  only;  but  nevertheless 
it  seemed  inconsistent  with  every  hypothesis, 
save  that  of  the  existence  of  such  conspiracy. 
I  believe  the  facts  can  be  explained  to-day  on 
no  other  hypothesis.  Judge  Douglas  can  so  ex- 


1 858]  Notes  for  Speeches  215 

plain  them  if  any  one  can.     From  warp  to  woof 
his  handiwork  is  everywhere  woven  in. 

At  New  York  he  finds  this  speech  of  mine, 
and  devises  his  plan  of  assault  upon  it.  At  Chi 
cago  he  develops  that  plan.  Passing  over,  un 
noticed,  the  obvious  purport  of  the  whole 
speech,  he  cooks  up  two  or  three  issues  upon 
points  not  discussed  by  me  at  all,  and  then 
authoritatively  announces  that  these  are  to  be 
the  issues  of  the  campaign.  Next  evening  I 
answer,  assuring  him  that  he  misunderstands  me 
— that  he  takes  issues  which  I  have  not  tendered. 
In  good  faith  I  try  to  set  him  right.  If  he 
really  has  misunderstood  my  meaning,  I  give 
him  language  that  can  no  longer  be  misunder 
stood.  He  will  have  none  of  it.  At  Bloom- 
ington,  six  days  later,  he  speaks  again,  and  per 
verts  me  even  worse  than  before.  He  seems  to 
have  grown  confident  and  jubilant,  in  the  belief 
that  he  has  entirely  diverted  me  from  my  pur 
pose  of  fixing  a  conspiracy  upon  him  and  his 
co-workers.  Next  day  he  speaks  again  at 
Springfield,  pursuing  the  same  course,  with  in 
creased  confidence  and  recklessness  of  assertion. 
At  night  of  that  day  I  speak  again.  I  tell  him 
that  as  he  has  carefully  read  my  speech  making 
the  charge  of  conspiracy,  and  has  twice  spoken 
of  the  speech  without  noticing  the  charge,  upon 
his  own  tacit  admission  I  renew  the  charge 


216  Abraham   Lincoln          [Oct.  i 

against  him.  I  call  him,  and  take  a  default 
upon  him.  At  Clifton,  ten  days  after,  he  comes 
in  with  a  plea.  The  substance  of  that  plea  is 
that  he  never  passed  a  word  with  Chief  Justice 
Taney  as  to  what  his  decision  was  to  be  in  the 
Dred  Scott  case;  that  I  ought  to  know  that  he 
who  affirms  what  he  does  not  know  to  be  true 
falsifies  as  much  as  he  who  affirms  what  he  does 
know  to  be  false;  and  that  he  would  pronounce 
the  whole  charge  of  conspiracy  a  falsehood, 
were  it  not  for  his  own  self-respect! 

Now  I  demur  to  this  plea.  Waiving  objec 
tion  that  it  was  not  filed  till  after  default,  I 
demur  to  it  on  the  merits.  I  say  it  does  not 
meet  the  case.  What  if  he  did  not  pass  a  word 
with  Chief  Justice  Taney?  Could  he  not  have 
as  distinct  an  understanding,  and  play  his  part 
just  as  well,  without  directly  passing  a  word 
with  Taney,  as  with  it?  But  suppose  we  con 
strue  this  part  of  the  plea  more  broadly  than  he 
puts  it  himself — suppose  we  construe  it,  as  in 
an  answer  in  chancery,  to  be  a  denial  of  all 
knowledge,  information,  or  belief  of  such  con 
spiracy.  Still  I  have  the  right  to  prove  the 
conspiracy,  even  against  his  answer;  and  there 
is  much  more  than  the  evidence  of  two  witnesses 
to  prove  it  by.  Grant  that  he  has  no  knowl 
edge,  information,  or  belief  of  such  conspiracy, 
and  what  of  it?  That  does  not  disturb  the  facts 


1858]  Notes   for  Speeches  217 

in  evidence.  It  only  makes  him  the  dupe,  in 
stead  of  a  principal,  of  conspirators. 

What  if  a  man  may  not  affirm  a  proposition 
without  knowing  it  to  be  true?  I  have  not  af 
firmed  that  a  conspiracy  does  exist.  I  have 
only  stated  the  evidence,  and  affirmed  my  belief 
in  its  existence.  If  Judge  Douglas  shall  assert 
that  I  do  not  believe  what  I  say,  then  he  affirms 
what  he  cannot  know  to  be  true,  and  falls  within 
the  condemnation  of  his  own  rule. 

Would  it  not  be  much  better  for  him  to  meet 
the  evidence,  and  show,  if  he  can,  that  I  have 
no  good  reason  to  believe  the  charge?  Would 
not  this  be  far  more  satisfactory  than  merely 
vociferating  an  intimation  that  he  may  be  pro 
voked  to  call  somebody  a  liar? 

So  far  as  I  know,  he  denies  no  fact  which  I 
have  alleged.  Without  now  repeating  all  those 
facts,  I  recall  attention  to  only  a  few  of  them. 
A  provision  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  penned  by 
Judge  Douglas,  is  in  these  words: 

It  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not 
to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor 
exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof 
perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic 
institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States. 


2i 8  Abraham  Lincoln          [Oct.  i 

In  support  of  this  the  argument,  evidently 
prepared  in  advance,  went  forth:  "Why  not 
let  the  people  of  a  Territory  have  or  exclude 
slavery,  just  as  they  choose?  Have  they  any 
less  sense  or  less  patriotism  when  they  settle  in 
the  Territories  than  when  they  lived  in  the 
States?" 

Now  the  question  occurs :  Did  Judge  Doug 
las,  even  then,  intend  that  the  people  of  a  Ter 
ritory  should  have  the  power  to  exclude  slavery? 
If  he  did,  why  did  he  vote  against  an  amend 
ment  expressly  declaring  they  might  exclude  it? 
With  men  who  then  knew  and  intended  that  a 
Supreme  Court  decision  should  soon  follow,  de 
claring  that  the  people  of  a  Territory  could  not 
exclude  slavery,  voting  down  such  an  amend 
ment  was  perfectly  rational.  But  with  men  not 
expecting  or  desiring  such  a  decision,  and  really 
wishing  the  people  to  have  such  power,  voting 
down  such  an  amendment,  to  my  mind,  is  wholly 
inexplicable. 

That  such  an  amendment  was  voted  down  by 
the  friends  of  the  bill,  including  Judge  Doug 
las,  is  a  recorded  fact  of  the  case.  There  was 
some  real  reason  for  so  voting  it  down.  What 
that  reason  was,  Judge  Douglas  can  tell.  I  be 
lieve  that  reason  was  to  keep  the  way  clear  for 
a  court  decision,  then  expected  to  come,  and 
which  has  since  come,  in  the  case  of  Dred  Scott. 


1858]  Notes  for  Speeches  219 

If  there  was  any  other  reason  for  voting  down 
that  amendment,  Judge  Douglas  knows  of  it 
and  can  tell  it.  Again,  in  the  before-quoted 
part  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  what  means  the  pro 
vision  that  the  people  of  the  "State"  shall  be 
left  perfectly  free,  subject  only  to  the  Consti 
tution?  Congress  was  not  therein  legislating 
for,  or  about,  States  or  the  people  of  States.  In 
that  bill  the  provision  about  the  people  of 
"States"  is  the  odd  half  of  something,  the  other 
half  of  which  was  not  yet  quite  ready  for  exhi 
bition.  What  is  that  other  half  to  be?  An 
other  Supreme  Court  decision,  declaring  that 
the  people  of  a  State  cannot  exclude  slavery,  is 
exactly  fitted  to  be  that  other  half.  As  the 
power  of  the  people  of  the  Territories  and  of 
the  States  is  cozily  set  down  in  the  Nebraska  bill 
as  being  the  same:  so  the  constitutional  limita 
tions  on  that  power  will  then  be  judicially  held 
to  be  precisely  the  same  in  both  Territories  and 
States — that  is,  that  the  Constitution  permits 
neither  a  Territory  nor  a  State  to  exclude  slav 
ery. 

With  persons  looking  forward  to  such  addi 
tional  decision,  the  inserting  a  provision  about 
States  in  the  Nebraska  bill  was  perfectly  ra 
tional;  but  to  persons  not  looking  for  such 
decision  it  was  a  puzzle.  There  was  a  real 
reason  for  inserting  such  provision.  Judge 


220  Abraham   Lincoln          [Oct.  i 

Douglas  inserted  it,  and  therefore  knows,  and 
can  tell,  what  that  real  reason  was. 

Judge  Douglas's  present  course  by  no  means 
lessens  my  belief  in  the  existence  of  a  purpose 
to  make  slavery  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States. 
This  can  be  done  by  a  Supreme  Court  decision 
holding  that  the  United  States  Constitution  for 
bids  a  State  to  exclude  slavery;  and  probably  it 
can  be  done  in  no  other  way.  The  idea  of  forc 
ing  slavery  into  a  free  State,  or  out  of  a  slave 
State,  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet,  is  alike  non 
sensical.  Slavery  can  only  become  extinct  by 
being  restricted  to  its  present  limits,  and  dwin 
dling  out.  It  can  only  become  national  by  a 
Supreme  Court  decision.  To  such  a  decision, 
when  it  comes,  Judge  Douglas  is  fully  commit 
ted.  Such  a  decision  acquiesced  in  by  the  peo 
ple  effects  the  whole  object.  Bearing  this  in 
mind,  look  at  what  Judge  Douglas  is  doing 
every  day.  For  the  first  sixty-five  years  under 
the  United  States  Constitution,  the  practice  of 
government  had  been  to  exclule  slavery  from 
the  new  free  Territories.  About  the  end  of  that 
period  Congress,  by  the  Nebraska  bill,  resolved 
to  abandon  this  practice;  and  this  was  rapidly 
succeeded  by  a  Supreme  Court  decision  holding 
the  practice  to  have  always  been  unconstitu 
tional.  Some  of  us  refuse  to  obey  this  decision 
as  a  political  rule.  Forthwith  Judge  Douglas 


1858]  Notes  for  Speeches  221 

espouses  the  decision,  and  denounces  all  opposi 
tion  to  it  in  no  measured  terms.  He  adheres 
to  it  with  extraordinary  tenacity;  and  under 
rather  extraordinary  circumstances.  He  es 
pouses  it  not  on  any  opinion  of  his  that  it  is  right 
within  itself.  On  this  he  forbears  to 'commit 
himself.  He  espouses  it  exclusively  on  the 
ground  of  its  binding  authority  on  all  citizens 
—a  ground  which  commits  him  as  fully  to  the 
next  decision  as  to  this.  I  point  out  to  him  that 
Mr.  Jefferson  and  General  Jackson  were  both 
against  him  on  the  binding  political  authority 
of  Supreme  Court  decisions.  No  response. 
I  might  as  well  preach  Christianity  to  a  grizzly 
bear  as  to  preach  Jefferson  and  Jackson  to  him. 

I  tell  him  I  have  often  heard  him  denounce 
the  Supreme  Court  decision  in  favor  of  a  na 
tional  bank.  He  denies  the  accuracy  of  my  rec 
ollection — which  seems  strange  to  me,  but  I  let 
it  pass. 

I  remind  him  that  he,  even  now,  indorses  the 
Cincinnati  platform,  which  declares  that  Con 
gress  has  no  constitutional  power  to  charter  a 
bank;  and  that  in  the  teeth. of  a  Supreme  Court 
decision  that  Congress  has  such  power.  This 
he  cannot  deny;  and  so  he  remembers  to  for 
get  it. 

I  remind  him  of  a  piece  of  Illinois  history 
about  Supreme  Court  decisions — of  a  time 


222  Abraham   Lincoln          [Oct.  i 

when  the  Supreme  Court  of  Illinois,  consisting 
of  four  judges,  because  of  one  decision  made, 
and  one  expected  to  be  made,  were  overwhelmed 
by  the  adding  of  five  new  judges  to  their  num 
ber;  that  he,  Judge  Douglas,  took  a  leading 
part  in  that  onslaught,  ending  in  his  sitting 
down  on  the  bench  as  one  of  the  five  added 
judges.  I  suggest  to  him  that  as  to  his  ques 
tions  how  far  judges  have  to  be  catechized  in 
advance,  when  appointed  under  such  circum 
stances,  and  how  far  a  court,  so  constituted,  is 
prostituted  beneath  the  contempt  of  all  men,  no 
man  is  better  posted  to  answer  than  he,  having 
once  been  entirely  through  the  mill  himself. 

Still  no  response,  except  "Hurrah  for  the 
Dred  Scott  decision!"  These  things  warrant 
me  in  saying  that  Judge  Douglas  adheres  to  the 
Dred  Scott  decision  under  rather  extraordinary 
circumstances — circumstances  suggesting  the 
question,  "Why  does  he  adhere  to  it  so  pertina 
ciously?  Why  does  he  thus  belie  his  whole  past 
life?  Why,  with  a  long  record  more  marked 
for  hostility  to  judicial  decisions  than  almost 
any  living  man,  does  he  cling  to  this  with  a  de 
votion  that  nothing  can  baffle?"  In  this  age, 
and  this  country,  public  sentiment  is  every 
thing.  With  it,  nothing  can  fail;  against  it, 
nothing  can  succeed.  Whoever  molds  public 
sentiment  goes  deeper  than  he  who  enacts  stat- 


1858]  Notes  for  Speeches  223 

utes  or  pronounces  judicial  decisions.  He 
makes  possible  the  enforcement  of  them,  else 
impossible. 

Judge  Douglas  is  a  man  of  large  influence. 
His  bare  opinion  goes  far  to  fix  the  opinions  of 
others.  Besides  this,  thousands  hang  their 
hopes  upon  forcing  their  opinions  to  agree  with 
his.  It  is  a  party  necessity  with  them  to  say 
they  agree  with  him,  and  there  is  danger  they 
will  repeat  the  saying  till  they  really  come  to 
believe  it.  Others  dread,  and  shrink  from,  his 
denunciations,  his  sarcasms,  and  his  ingenious 
misrepresentations.  The  susceptible  young  hear 
lessons  from  him,  such  as  their  fathers  never 
heard  when  they  were  young. 

If,  by  all  these  means,  he  shall  succeed  in 
molding  public  sentiment  to  a  perfect  accord 
ance  with  his  own;  in  bringing  all  men  to  in 
dorse  all  court  decisions,  without  caring  to 
know  whether  they  are  right  or  wrong;  in  bring 
ing  all  tongues  to  as  perfect  a  silence  as  his  own, 
as  to  there  being  any  wrong  in  slavery;  in  bring 
ing  all  to  declare,  with  him,  that  they  care  not 
whether  slavery  be  voted  down  or  voted  up; 
that  if  any  people  want  slaves  they  have  a  right 
to  have  them;  that  negroes  are  not  men;  have 
no  part  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence; 
that  there  is  no  moral  question  about  slavery; 
that  liberty  and  slavery  are  perfectly  consistent 


224  Abraham  Lincoln          [Oct.  i 

— indeed,  necessary  accompaniments;  that  for  a 
strong  man  to  declare  himself  the  superior  of  a 
weak  one,  and  thereupon  enslave  the  weak 
one,  is  the  very  essence  of  liberty,  the  most 
sacred  right  of  self-government;  when,  I  say, 
public  sentiment  shall  be  brought  to  all  this,  in 
the  name  of  Heaven  what  barrier  will  be  left 
against  slavery  being  made  lawful  everywhere? 
Can  you  find  one  word  of  his  opposed  to  it? 
Can  you  not  find  many  strongly  favoring  it?  If 
for  his  life,  for  his  eternal  salvation,  he  was 
solely  striving  for  that  end,  could  he  find  any 
means  so  well  adapted  to  reach  the  end? 

If  our  presidential  election,  by  a  mere  plu 
rality,  and  of  doubtful  significance,  brought  one 
Supreme  Court  decision  that  no  power  can  ex 
clude  slavery  from  a  Territory,  how  much  more 
shall  a  public  sentiment,  in  exact  accordance 
with  the  sentiments  of  Judge  Douglas,  bring 
another  that  no  power  can  exclude  it  from  a 
State? 

And  then,  the  negro  being  doomed,  and 
damned,  and  forgotten,  to  everlasting  bondage, 
is  the  white  man  quite  certain  that  the  tyrant 
demon  will  not  turn  upon  him  too? 


1858]  Notes  for  Speeches  225 


FRAGMENT:    NOTES  FOR  SPEECHES,  [October 
i,  1858?] 

FROM  time  to  time,  ever  since  the  Chicago 
"Times"  and  "Illinois  State  Register" 
declared  their  opposition  to  the  Lecomp- 
ton  constitution,  and  it  began  to  be  understood 
that  Judge  Douglas  was  also  opposed  to  it,  I 
have  been  accosted  by  friends  of  his  with  the 
question,  "What  do  you  think  now?"  Since  the 
delivery  of  his  speech  in  the  Senate,  the  question 
has  been  varied  a  little.  "Have  you  read  Doug 
las's  speech?"  "Yes."  "Well,  what  do  you 
think  of  it?"  In  every  instance  the  question  is 
accompanied  with  an  anxious  inquiring  stare, 
which  asks,  quite  as  plainly  as  words  could, 
"Can't  you  go  for  Douglas  now?"  Like  boys 
who  have  set  a  bird-trap,  they  are  watching  to 
see  if  the  birds  are  picking  at  the  bait  and  likely 
to  go  under. 

I  think,  then,  Judge  Douglas  knows  that  the 
Republicans  wish  Kansas  to  be  a  free  State. 
He  knows  that  they  know,  if  the  question  be 
fairly  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people  of  Kan 
sas,  it  will  be  a  free  State ;  and  he  would  not  ob 
ject  at  all  if,  by  drawing  their  attention  to  this 


226  Abraham  Lincoln          [Oct.  i 

particular  fact,  and  himself  becoming  vocifer 
ous  for  such  fair  vote,  they  should  be  induced 
to  drop  their  own  organization,  fall  into  rank 
behind  him,  and  form  a  great  free-State  Demo 
cratic  party. 

But  before  Republicans  do  this,  I  think  they 
ought  to  require  a  few  questions  to  be  answered 
on  the  other  side.  If  they  so  fall  in  with  Judge 
Douglas,  and  Kansas  shall  be  secured  as  a  free 
State,  there  then  remaining  no  cause  of  differ 
ence  between  him  and  the  regular  Democracy, 
will  not  the  Republicans  stand  ready,  haltered 
and  harnessed,  to  be  handed  over  by  him  to  the 
regular  Democracy,  to  filibuster  indefinitely  for 
additional  slave  territory, — to  carry  slavery  into 
all  the  States,  as  well  as  Territories,  under  the 
Dred  Scott  decision,  construed  and  enlarged 
from  time  to  time,  according  to  the  demands  of 
the  regular  slave  Democracy, — and  to  assist  in 
reviving  the  African  slave-trade  in  order  that 
all  may  buy  negroes  where  they  can  be  bought 
cheapest,  as  a  clear  incident  of  that  "sacred 
right  of  property,"  now  held  in  some  quarters 
to  be  above  all  constitutions? 

By  so  falling  in,  will  we  not  be  committed  to 
or  at  least  compromitted  with,  the  Nebraska 
policy? 

If  so,  we  should  remember  that  Kansas  is 
saved,  not  by  that  policy  or  its  authors,  but  in 


1858]  Notes  for  Speeches  227 

spite  of  both — by  an  effort  that  cannot  be  kept 
up  in  future  cases. 

Did  Judge  Douglas  help  any  to  get  a  free- 
State  majority  into  Kansas?  Not  a  bit  of  it — 
the  exact  contrary.  Does  he  now  express  any 
wish  that  Kansas,  or  any  other  place,  shall  be 
free?  Nothing  like  it.  He  tells  us,  in  this  very 
speech,  expected  to  be  so  palatable  to  Repub 
licans,  that  he  cares  not  whether  slavery  is  voted 
down  or  voted  up.  His  whole  effort  is  devoted 
to  clearing  the  ring,  and  giving  slavery  and  free 
dom  a  fair  fight.  With  one  who  considers  slav 
ery  just  as  good  as  freedom,  this  is  perfectly  nat 
ural  and  consistent. 

But  have  Republicans  any  sympathy  with 
such  a  view?  They  think  slavery  is  wrong;  and 
that,  like  every  other  wrong  which  some  men 
will  commit  if  left  alone,  it  ought  to  be  pro 
hibited  by  law.  They  consider  it  not  only 
morally  wrong,  but  a  "deadly  poison"  in  a  gov 
ernment  like  ours,  professedly  based  on  the 
equality  of  men.  Upon  this  radical  difference 
of  opinion  with  Judge  Douglas,  the  Republican 
party  was  organized.  There  is  all  the  differ 
ence  between  him  and  them  now  that  there  ever 
was.  He  will  not  say  that  he  has  changed ;  have 
you? 

Again,  we  ought  to  be  informed  as  to  Judge 
Douglas's  present  opinion  as  to  the  inclination 


228  Abraham  Lincoln          [Oct.  i 

of  Republicans  to  marry  with  negroes.  By  his 
Springfield  speech  we  know  what  it  was  last 
June;  and  by  his  resolution  dropped  at  Jack 
sonville  in  September  we  know  what  it  was 
then.  Perhaps  we  have  something  even  later 
in  a  Chicago  speech,  in  which  the  danger  of 
being  "stunk  out  of  church"  was  descanted  upon. 
But  what  is  his  opinion  on  the  point  now?  There 
is,  or  will  be,  a  sure  sign  to  judge  by.  If  this 
charge  shall  be  silently  dropped  by  the  judge 
and  his  friends,  if  no  more  resolutions  on  the 
subject  shall  be  passed  in  Douglas  Democratic 
meetings  and  conventions,  it  will  be  safe  to 
swear  that  he  is  courting.  Our  "witching 
smile"  has  "caught  his  youthful  fancy";  and 
henceforth  Cuffy  and  he  are  rival  beaux  for  our 
gushing  affections. 

We  also  ought  to  insist  on  knowing  what  the 
judge  now  thinks  on  "Sectionalism."  Last  year 
he  thought  it  was  a  "clincher"  against  us  on  the 
question  of  Sectionalism,  that  we  could  get  no 
support  in  the  slave  States,  and  could  not  be 
allowed  to  speak,  or  even  breathe,  south  of  the 
Ohio  River. 

In  vain  did  we  appeal  to  the  justice  of  our 
principles.  He  would  have  it  that  the  treat 
ment  we  received  was  conclusive  evidence  that 
we  deserved  it.  He  and  his  friends  would 
bring  speakers  from  the  slave  States  to  their 


1858]  Notes  for  Speeches  229 

meetings  and  conventions  in  the  free  States, 
and  parade  about,  arm  in  arm  with  them, 
breathing  in  every  gesture  and  tone,  "How  we 
national  apples  do  swim!"  Let  him  cast  about 
for  this  particular  evidence  of  his  own  nation 
ality  now.  Why,  just  now,  he  and  Fremont 
would  make  the  closest  race  imaginable  in  the 
Southern  States. 

In  the  present  aspect  of  affairs  what  ought 
the  Republicans  to  do?  I  think  they  ought  not 
to  oppose  any  measure  merely  because  Judge 
Douglas  proposes  it.  Whether  the  Lecompton 
constitution  should  be  accepted  or  rejected  is  a 
question  upon  which,  in  the  minds  of  men  not 
committed  to  any  of  its  antecedents,  and  con 
trolled  only  by  the  Federal  Constitution,  by  re 
publican  principles,  and  by  a  sound  morality, 
it  seems  to  me  there  could  not  be  two  opinions. 
It  should  be  throttled  and  killed  as  hastily  and 
as  heartily  as  a  rabid  dog.  What  those  should 
do  who  are  committed  to  all  its  antecedents  is 
their  business,  not  ours.  If,  therefore,  Judge 
Douglas's  bill  secures  a  fair  vote  to  the  people 
of  Kansas,  without  contrivance  to  commit  any 
one  farther,  I  think  Republican  members  of 
Congress  ought  to  support  it.  They  can  do  so 
without  any  inconsistency.  They  believe  Con 
gress  ought  to  prohibit  slavery  wherever  it  can 
be  done  without  violation  of  the  Constitution 


230  Abraham   Lincoln          [Oct.  i 

or  of  good  faith.  And  having  seen  the  noses 
counted,  and  actually  knowing  that  a  majority 
of  the  people  of  Kansas  are  against  slavery,  pass 
ing  an  act  to  secure  them  a  fair  vote  is  little 
else  than  prohibiting  slavery  in  Kansas  by  act 
of  Congress. 

Congress  cannot  dictate  a  constitution  to  a 
new  State.  All  it  can  do  at  that  point  is  to 
secure  the  people  a  fair  chance  to  form  one  for 
themselves,  and  then  to  accept  or  reject  it  when 
they  ask  admission  into  the  Union.  As  I  un 
derstand,  Republicans  claim  no  more  than  this. 
But  they  do  claim  that  Congress  can  and  ought 
to  keep  slavery  out  of  a  Territory,  up  to  the 
time  of  its  people  forming  a  State  constitution ; 
and  they  should  now  be  careful  to  not  stultify 
themselves  to  any  extent  on  that  point. 

I  am  glad  Judge  Douglas  has,  at  last,  dis 
tinctly  told  us  that  he  cares  not  whether  slavery 
be  voted  down  or  voted  up.  Not  so  much  that 
this  is  any  news  to  me;  nor  yet  that  it  may  be 
slightly  new  to  some  of  that  class  of  his  friends 
who  delight  to  say  that  they  "are  as  much  op 
posed  to  slavery  as  anybody." 

I  am  glad  because  it  affords  such  a  true  and 
excellent  definition  of  the  Nebraska  policy  it 
self.  That  policy,  honestly  administered,  is  ex 
actly  that.  It  seeks  to  bring  the  people  of  the 
nation  to  not  care  anything  about  slavery.  This 


1858]  Notes  for  Speeches  231 

is  Nebraskaism  in  its  abstract  purity — in  its  very 
best  dress. 

Now,  I  take  it,  nearly  everybody  does  care 
something  about  slavery — is  either  for  it  or 
against  it;  and  that  the  statesmanship  of  a  meas 
ure  which  conforms  to  the  sentiments  of  nobody 
might  well  be  doubted  in  advance. 

But  Nebraskaism  did  not  originate  as  a  piece 
of  statesmanship.  General  Cass,  in  1848,  in 
vented  it,  as  a  political  manoeuver,  to  secure 
himself  the  Democratic  nomination  for  the  pres 
idency.  It  served  its  purpose  then,  and  sunk 
out  of  sight.  Six  years  later  Judge  Douglas 
fished  it  up,  and  glozed  it  over  with  what  he 
called,  and  still  persists  in  calling,  "sacred 
rights  of  self-government." 

Well,  I,  too,  believe  in  self-government  as  I 
understand  it;  but  I  do  not  understand  that  the 
privilege  one  man  takes  of  making  a  slave  of 
another,  or  holding  him  as  such,  is  any  part  of 
"self-government."  To  call  it  so  is,  to  my  mind, 
simply  absurd  and  ridiculous.  I  am  for  the 
people  of  the  whole  nation  doing  just  as  they 
please  in  all  matters  which  concern  the  whole 
nation ;  for  those  of  each  part  doing  just  as  they 
choose  in  all  matters  which  concern  no  other 
part;  and  for  each  individual  doing  just  as  he 
chooses  in  all  matters  which  concern  nobody 
else.  This  is  the  principle.  Of  course  I  am 


232  Abraham   Lincoln  [Oct.  i 

content  with  any  exception  which  the  Constitu 
tion,  or  the  actually  existing  state  of  things, 
makes  a  necessity.  But  neither  the  principle 
nor  the  exception  will  admit  the  indefinite 
spread  and  perpetuity  of  human  slavery. 

I  think  the  true  magnitude  of  the  slavery  ele 
ment  in  this  nation  is  scarcely  appreciated  by 
any  one.  Four  years  ago  the  Nebraska  policy 
was  adopted,  professedly,  to  drive  the  agitation 
of  the  subject  into  the  Territories,  and  out  of 
every  other  place,  and  especially  out  of  Con 
gress. 

When  Mr.  Buchanan  accepted  the  presiden 
tial  nomination,  he  felicitated  himself  with  the 
belief  that  the  whole  thing  would  be  quieted 
and  forgotten  in  about  six  weeks.  In  his  inau 
gural,  and  in  his  Silliman  letter,  at  their  re 
spective  dates,  he  was  just  not  quite  in  reach  of 
the  same  happy  consummation.  And  now,  in 
his  first  annual  message,  he  urges  the  acceptance 
of  the  Lecompton  constitution  (not  quite  satis 
factory  to  him)  on  the  sole  ground  of  getting 
this  little  unimportant  matter  out  of  the  way. 

Meanwhile,  in  those  four  years,  there  has 
really  been  more  angry  agitation  of  this  sub 
ject,  both  in  and  out  of  Congress,  than  ever  be 
fore.  And  just  now  it  is  perplexing  the  mighty 
ones  as  no  subject  ever  did  before.  Nor  is  it 
confined  to  politics  alone.  Presbyterian  assem- 


1858]  Notes  for  Speeches  233 

blies,  Methodist  conferences,  Unitarian  gather 
ings,  and  single  churches  to  an  indefinite  extent, 
are  wrangling,  and  cracking,  and  going  to 
pieces  on  the  same  question.  Why,  Kansas  is 
neither  the  whole  nor  a  tithe  of  the  real  ques 
tion. 

A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand. 

I  believe  the  government  cannot  endure  per 
manently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  expressed 
this  belief  a  year  ago;  and  subsequent  develop 
ments  have  but  confirmed  me.  I  do  not  expect 
the  Union  to  be  dissolved.  I  do  not  expect  the 
house  to  fall ;  but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be 
divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all 
the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will 
arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  put  it  in 
course  of  ultimate  extinction;  or  its  advocates 
will  push  it  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike 
lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new.  Do 
you  doubt  it?  Study  the  Dred  Scott  decision, 
and  then  see  how  little  even  now  remains  to  be 
done.  That  decision  may  be  reduced  to  three 
points. 

The  first  is  that  a  negro  cannot  be  a  citizen. 
That  point  is  made  in  order  to  deprive  the 
negro,  in  every  possible  event,  of  the  benefit 
of  that  provision  of  the  United  States  Constitu- 


234  Abraham   Lincoln          [Oct.  i 

tion  which  declares  that  "the  citizens  of  each 
State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  privileges  and  im 
munities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States." 

The  second  point  is  that  the  United  States 
Constitution  protects  slavery,  as  property,  in  all 
the  United  States  territories,  and  that  neither 
Congress,  nor  the  people  of  the  Territories,  nor 
any  other  power,  can  prohibit  it  at  any  time 
prior  to  the  formation  of  State  constitutions. 

This  point  is  made  in  order  that  the  Terri 
tories  may  safely  be  filled  up  with  slaves,  before 
the  formation  of  State  constitutions,  thereby  to 
embarrass  the  free-State  sentiment,  and  enhance 
the  chances  of  slave  constitutions  being  adopted. 

The  third  point  decided  is  that  the  voluntary 
bringing  of  Dred  Scott  into  Illinois  by  his  mas 
ter,  and  holding  him  here  a  long  time  as  a  slave, 
did  not  operate  his  emancipation — did  not  make 
him  free. 

This  point  is  made,  not  to  be  pressed  imme 
diately;  but  if  acquiesced  in  for  a  while,  then 
to  sustain  the  logical  conclusion  that  what  Dred 
Scott's  master  might  lawfully  do  with  Dred 
in  the  free  State  of  Illinois,  every  other  master 
may  lawfully  do  with  any  other  one  or  one  hun 
dred  slaves  in  Illinois,  or  in  any  other  free  State. 
Auxiliary  to  all  this,  and  working  hand  in  hand 
with  it,  the  Nebraska  doctrine  is  to  educate  and 
mold  public  opinion  to  "not  care  whether  slav- 


1858]  Notes  for  Speeches  235 

ery  is  voted  up  or  voted  down."  At  least  North 
ern  public  opinion  must  cease  to  care  anything 
about  it.  Southern  public  opinion  may,  with 
out  offense,  continue  to  care  as  much  as  it 
pleases. 

Welcome  or  unwelcome,  agreeable  or  dis 
agreeable,  whether  this  shall  be  an  entire  slave 
nation  is  the  issue  before  us.  Every  incident — 
every  little  shifting  of  scenes  or  of  actors — only 
clears  away  the  intervening  trash,  compacts  and 
consolidates  the  opposing  hosts,  and  brings  them 
more  and  more  distinctly  face  to  face.  The 
conflict  will  be  a  severe  one;  and  it  will  be 
fought  through  by  those  who  do  care  for  the 
result,  and  not  by  those  who  do  not  care — by 
those  who  are  for,  and  those  who  are  against,  a 
legalized  national  slavery.  The  combined 
charge  of  Nebraskaism  and  Dred-Scottism  must 
be  repulsed  and  rolled  back.  The  deceitful 
cloak  of  "self-government,"  wherewith  "the 
sum  of  all  villainies"  seeks  to  protect  and  adorn 
itself,  must  be  torn  from  its  hateful  carcassi. 
That  burlesque  upon  judicial  decisions,  and 
slander  and  profanation  upon  the  honored 
names  and  sacred  history  of  republican  America, 
must  be  overruled  and  expunged  from  the  books 
of  authority. 

To  give  the  victory  to  the  right,  not  bloody 
bullets,  but  peaceful  ballots  only  are  necessary. 


236  Abraham  Lincoln          [Oct.  i 

Thanks  to  our  good  old  Constitution,  and  or 
ganization  under  it,  these  alone  are  necessary. 
It  only  needs  that  every  right  thinking  maa 
shall  go  to  the  polls,  and  without  fear  or  preju 
dice  vote  as  he  thinks. 


1858]         Speech   at  Galesburg  237 


FIFTH  JOINT  DEBATE,  AT  GALESBURG,  ILLINOIS, 
Octobery,  1858. 

Mr.  Douglas's  Opening  Speech. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Four 
years  ago  I  appeared  before  the  people 
of  Knox  County  for  the  purpose  of  de 
fending  my  political  action  upon  the  compro 
mise  measures  of  1850  and  the  passage  of  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  Those  of  you  before  me 
who  were  present  then  will  remember  that  I 
vindicated  myself  for  supporting  those  two 
measures  by  the  fact  that  they  rested  upon  the 
great  fundamental  principle  that  the  people  of 
each  State  and  each  Territory  of  this  Union  have 
the  right,  and  ought  to  be  permitted  to  exercise 
the  right,  of  regulating  their  own  domestic  con 
cerns  in  their  own  way,  subject  to  no  other  lim 
itation  or  restriction  than  that  which  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  imposes  upon 
them.  I  then  called  upon  the  people  of  Illinois 
to  decide  whether  that  principle  of  self-govern 
ment  was  right  or  wrong.  If  it  was  and  is 
right,  then  the  compromise  measures  of  1850 
were  right,  and,  consequently,  the  Kansas  and 


238  Stephen  A.   Douglas       [Oct.  7 

Nebraska  bill,  based  upon  the  same  principle, 
must  necessarily  have  been  right 

The  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  declared,  in 
so  many  words,  that  it  was  the  true  intent  and 
meaning  of  the  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into 
any  State  or  Territory,  nor  to  exclude  it  there 
from,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly 
free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  insti 
tutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  For  the  last 
four  years  I  have  devoted  all  my  energies,  in 
private  and  public,  to  commend  that  principle 
to  the  American  people.  Whatever  else  may 
be  said  in  condemnation  or  support  of  my  po 
litical  course,  I  apprehend  that  no  honest  man 
will  doubt  the  fidelity  with  which  under  all  cir 
cumstances  I  have  stood  by  it. 

During  the  last  year  a  question  arose  in  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  whether  or  not 
that  principle  would  be  violated  by  the  admis 
sion  of  Kansas  into  the  Union  under  the  Le- 
compton  constitution.  In  my  opinion,  the  at 
tempt  to  force  Kansas  in  under  that  constitu 
tion  was  a  gross  violation  of  the  principle  enun 
ciated  in  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  and 
the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  of  1854,  and  there 
fore  I  led  off  in  the  fight  against  the  Lecompton 
constitution,  and  conducted  it  until  the  effort 
to  carry  that  constitution  through  Congress  was 


1858]          Speech   at  Galesburg  239 

abandoned.  And  I  can  appeal  to  all  men, 
friends  and  foes,  Democrats  and  Republicans, 
Northern  men  and  Southern  men,  that  during 
the  whole  of  that  fight  I  carried  the  banner  of 
popular  sovereignty  aloft,  and  never  allowed  it 
to  trail  in  the  dust,  or  lowered  my  flag  until 
victory  perched  upon  our  arms.  When  the  Le- 
compton  constitution  was  defeated,  the  question 
arose  in  the  minds  of  those  who  had  advocated 
it  what  they  should  next  resort  to  in  order  to 
carry  out  their  views.  They  devised  a  measure 
known  as  the  English  bill,  and  granted  a  gen 
eral  amnesty  and  political  pardon  to  all  men 
who  had  fought  against  the  Lecompton  consti 
tution,  provided  they  would  support  that  bill. 
I  for  one  did  not  choose  to  accept  the  pardon, 
or  to  avail  myself  of  the  amnesty  granted  on 
that  condition.  The  fact  that  the  supporters  of 
Lecompton  were  willing  to  forgive  all  differ 
ences  of  opinion  at  that  time,  in  the  event  those 
who  opposed  it  favored  the  English  bill,  was 
an  admission  that  they  did  not  think  that  oppo 
sition  to  Lecompton  impaired  a  man's  standing 
in  the  Democratic  party.  Now  the  question 
arises :  What  was  that  English  bill  which  cer 
tain  men  are  now  attempting  to  make  a  test  of 
political  orthodoxy  in  this  country?  It  pro 
vided,  in  substance,  that  the  Lecompton  consti 
tution  should  be  sent  back  to  the  people  of  Kan- 


240  Stephen   A.   Douglas       [Oct.  7 

sas  for  their  adoption  or  rejection,  at  an  elec 
tion  which  was  held  in  August  last,  and  in  case 
they  refused  admission  under  it,  that  Kansas 
should  be  kept  out  of  the  Union  until  she  had 
93,420  inhabitants. 

I  was  in  favor  of  sending  the  constitution  back 
in  order  to  enable  the  people  to  say  whether  or 
not  it  was  their  act  and  deed,  and  embodied 
their  will ;  but  the  other  proposition,  that  if  they 
refused  to  come  into  the  Union  under  it,  they 
should  be  kept  out  until  they  had  double  or 
treble  the  population  they  then  had,  I  never 
would  sanction  by  my  vote.  The  reason  why  I 
could  not  sanction  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact 
that  by  the  English  bill,  if  the  people  of  Kan 
sas  had  only  agreed  to  become  a  slaveholding 
State  under  the  Lecompton  constitution,  they 
could  have  done  so  with  35,000  people,  but  if 
they  insisted  on  being  a  free  State,  as  they  had 
a  right  to  do,  then  they  were  to  be  punished  by 
being  kept  out  of  the  Union  until  they  had  near 
ly  three  times  that  population.  I  then  said  in 
my  place  in  the  Senate,  as  I  now  say  to  you, 
that  whenever  Kansas  has  population  enough 
for  a  slave  State  she  has  population  enough  for 
a  free  State.  I  have  never  yet  given  a  vote,  and 
I  never  intend  to  record  one,  making  an  odious 
and  unjust  distinction  between  the  different 
States  of  this  Union.  I  hold  it  to  be  a  funda- 


1858]          Speech  at  Galesburg  241 

mental  principle  in  our  republican  form  of  gov 
ernment  that  all  the  States  of  this  Union,  old 
and  new,  free  and  slave,  stand  on  an  exact  equal 
ity.  Equality  among  the  different  States  is  a 
cardinal  principle  on  which  all  our  institutions 
rest.  Wherever,  therefore,  you  make  a  discrim 
ination,  saying  to  a  slave  State  that  it  shall  be 
admitted  with  35,000  inhabitants,  and  to  a  free 
State  that  it  shall  not  be  admitted  until  it  has 
93,000  or  100,000  inhabitants,  you  are  throwing 
the  whole  weight  of  the  Federal  Government 
into  the  scale  in  favor  of  one  class  of  States 
against  the  other.  Nor  would  I  on  the  other 
hand  any  sooner  sanction  the  doctrine  that  a 
free  State  could  be  admitted  into  the  Union  with 
35,000  people,  while  a  slave  State  was  kept  out 
until  it  had  93,000.  I  have  always  declared  in 
the  Senate  my  willingness,  and  I  am  willing 
now,  to  adopt  the  rule  that  no  Territory  shall 
ever  become  a  State  until  it  has  the  requisite 
population  for  a  member  of  Congress,  accord 
ing  to  the  then  existing  ratio.  But  while  I  have 
always  been,  and  am  now,  willing  to  adopt  that 
general  rule,  I  was  not  willing  and  would  not 
consent  to  make  an  exception  of  Kansas,  as  a 
punishment  for  her  obstinacy  in  demanding  the 
right  to  do  as  she  pleased  in  the  formation  of 
her  constitution.  It  is  proper  that  I  should  re 
mark  here  that  my  opposition  to  the  Lecomp- 


242  Stephen  A.   Douglas       [Oct.  7 

ton  constitution  did  not  rest  upon  the  peculiar 
position  taken  by  Kansas  on  the  subject  of  slav 
ery.  I  held  then,  and  hold  now,  that  if  the 
people  of  Kansas  want  a  slave  State,  it  is  their 
right  to  make  one  and  be  received  into  the  Union 
under  it;  if,  on  the  contrary,  they  want  a  free 
State,  it  is  their  right  to  have  it,  and  no  man 
should  ever  oppose  their  admission  because  they 
ask  it  under  the  one  or  the  other.  I  hold  to 
that  great  principle  of  self-government  which 
asserts  the  right  of  every  people  to  decide  for 
themselves  the  nature  and  character  of  the  do 
mestic  institutions  and  fundamental  law  under 
which  they  are  to  live. 

The  effort  has  been,  and  is  now  being,  made 
in  this  State  by  certain  postmasters  and  other 
federal  office-holders,  to  make  a  test  of  faith  on 
the  support  of  the  English  bill.  These  men  are 
now  making  speeches  all  over  the  State  against 
me  and  in  favor  of  Lincoln,  either  directly  or 
indirectly,  because  I  would  not  sanction  a  dis 
crimination  between  slave  and  free  States  by 
voting  for  the  English  bill.  But  while  that  bill 
is  made  a  test  in  Illinois  for  the  purpose  of 
breaking  up  the  Democratic  organization  in 
this  State,  how  is  it  in  the  other  States?  Go  to 
Indiana,  and  there  you  find  that  English  him 
self,  the  author  of  the  English  bill,  who  is  a 
candidate  for  reelection  to  Congress,  has  been 


1858]          Speech  at  Galesburg  243 

forced  by  public  opinion  to  abandon  his  own 
darling  project,  and  to  give  a  promise  that  he 
will  vote  for  the  admission  of  Kansas  at  once, 
whenever  she  forms  a  constitution  in  pursuance 
of  law,  and  ratifies  it  by  a  majority  vote  of  her 
people.  Not  only  is  this  the  case  with  English 
himself,  but  I  am  informed  that  every  Demo 
cratic  candidate  for  Congress  in  Indiana  takes 
the  same  ground.  Pass  to  Ohio,  and  there  you 
find  that  Groesbeck,  and  Pendleton,  and  Cox, 
and  all  the  other  anti-Lecompton  men  who  stood 
shoulder  to  shoulder  with  me  against  the  Le- 
compton  constitution,  but  voted  for  the  English 
bill,  now  repudiate  it  and  take  the  same  ground 
that  I  do  on  that  question.  So  it  is  with  the 
Joneses  and  others  of  Pennsylvania,  and  so  it 
is  with  every  other  Lecompton  Democrat  in  the 
free  States. 

They  now  abandon  even  the  English  bill,  and 
come  back  to  the  true  platform  which  I  pro 
claimed  at  the  time  in  the  Senate,  and  upon 
which  the  Democracy  of  Illinois  now  stand. 
And  yet,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  every 
Lecompton  and  anti-Lecompton  Democrat  in 
the  free  States  has  abandoned  the  English  bill, 
you  are  told  that  it  is  to  be  made  a  test  upon 
me,  while  the  power  and  patronage  of  the  gov 
ernment  are  all  exerted  to  elect  men  to  Con 
gress  in  the  other  States  who  occupy  the  same 


244  Stephen   A.   Douglas       [Oct.  7 

position  with  reference  to  it  that  I  do.  It  seems 
that  my  political  offense  consists  in  the  fact  that 
I  did  not  first  vote  for  the  English  bill,  and  thus 
pledge  myself  to  keep  Kansas  out  of  the  Union 
until  she  has  a  population  of  93,420,  and  then 
return  home,  violate  that  pledge,  repudiate  the 
bill,  and  take  the  opposite  ground.  If  I  had 
done  this,  perhaps  the  administration  would 
now  be  advocating  my  reelection,  as  it  is  that  of 
the  others  who  have  pursued  this  course.  I  did 
not  choose  to  give  that  pledge,  for  the  reason 
that  I  did  not  intend  to  carry  out  that  principle. 
I  never  will  consent,  for  the  sake  of  conciliat 
ing  the  frowns  of  power,  to  pledge  myself  to  do 
that  which  I  do  not  intend  to  perform.  I  now 
submit  the  question  to  you,  as  my  constituency, 
whether  I  was  not  right — first,  in  resisting  the 
adoption  of  the  Lecompton  constitution;  and 
secondly,  in  resisting  the  English  bill.  I  re 
peat  that  I  opposed  the  Lecompton  constitution 
because  it  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people 
of  Kansas,  and  did  not  embody  their  will.  I 
denied  the  right  of  any  power  on  earth,  under 
our  system  of  government,  to  force  a  constitu 
tion  on  an  unwilling  people.  There  was  a  time 
when  some  men  could  pretend  to  believe  that 
the  Lecompton  constitution  embodied  the  will 
of  the  people  of  Kansas,  but  that  time  has  passed. 
The  question  was  referred  to  the  people  of  Kan- 


1858]         Speech  at  Galesburg  245 

sas  under  the  English  bill  last  August,  and  then, 
at  a  fair  election,  they  rejected  the  Lecompton 
constitution  by  a  vote  of  from  eight  to  ten 
against  it  to  one  in  its  favor.  Since  it  has  been 
voted  down  by  so  overwhelming  a  majority,  no 
man  can  pretend  that  it  was  the  act  and  deed  of 
that  people.  I  submit  the  question  to  you, 
whether  or  not,  if  it  had  not  been  for  me,  that 
constitution  would  have  been  crammed  down 
the  throats  of  the  people  of  Kansas  against  their 
consent.  While  at  least  ninety-nine  out  of  every 
hundred  people  here  present  agree  that  I  was 
right  in  defeating  that  project,  yet  my  enemies 
use  the  fact  that  I  did  defeat  it  by  doing  right, 
to  break  me  down  and  put  another  man  in  the 
United  States  Senate  in  my  place.  The  very 
men  who  acknowledge  that  I  was  right  in  de 
feating  Lecompton  now  form  an  alliance  with 
federal  office-holders,  professed  Lecompton 
men,  to  defeat  me  because  I  did  right. 

My  political  opponent,  Mr.  Lincoln,  has  no 
hope  on  earth,  and  has  never  dreamed  that  he 
had  a  chance  of  success,  were  it  not  for  the  aid. 
that  he  is  receiving  from  federal  office-holders, 
who  are  using  their  influence  and  the  patronage 
of  the  government  against  me  in  revenge  for 
my  having  defeated  the  Lecompton  constitu 
tion.  What  do  you  Republicans  think  of  a 
political  organization  that  will  try  to  make  an 


246  Stephen   A.    Douglas        [Oct.  7 

unholy  and  unnatural  combination  with  its  pro 
fessed  foes  to  beat  a  man  merely  because  he  has 
done  right?  You  know  such  is  the  fact  with 
regard  to  your  own  party.  You  know  that  the 
ax  of  decapitation  is  suspended  over  every  man 
in  office  in  Illinois,  and  the  terror  of  proscrip 
tion  is  threatened  every  Democrat  by  the  pres 
ent  administration,  unless  he  supports  the  Re 
publican  ticket  in  preference  to  my  Democratic 
associates  and  myself.  I  could  find  an  instance 
in  the  postmaster  of  the  city  of  Galesburg,  and 
in  every  other  postmaster  in  this  vicinity,  all  of 
whom  have  been  stricken  down  simply  because 
they  discharged  the  duties  of  their  offices  hon 
estly,  and  supported  the  regular  Democratic 
ticket  in  this  State  in  the  right.  The  Repub 
lican  party  is  availing  itself  of  every  unworthy 
means  in  the  present  contest  to  carry  the  elec 
tion,  because  its  leaders  know  that  if  they  let 
this  chance  slip  they  will  never  have  another, 
and  their  hopes  of  making  this  a  Republican 
State  will  be  blasted  forever. 

Now,  let  me  ask  you  whether  the  country  has 
any  interest  in  sustaining  this  organization 
known  as  the  Republican  party.  That  party  is 
unlike  all  other  political  organizations  in  this 
country.  All  other  parties  have  been  national 
in  their  character — have  avowed  their  princi 
ples  alike  in  the  slave  and  free  States,  in  Ken- 


1858]          Speech  at  Galesburg  247 

tucky  as  well  as  Illinois,  in  Louisiana  as  well  as 
in  Massachusetts.  Such  was  the  case  with  the 
Old  Whig  party,  and  such  was  and  is  the  case 
with  the  Democratic  party.  Whigs  and  Demo 
crats  could  proclaim  their  principles  boldly  and 
fearlessly  in  the  North  and  in  the  South,  in  the. 
East  and  in  the  West,  wherever  the  Constitution 
ruled  and  the  American  flag  waved  over  Ameri 
can  soil. 

But  now  you  have  a  sectional  organization, 
a  party  which  appeals  to  the  Northern  section 
of  the  Union  against  the  Southern,  a  party 
which  appeals  to  Northern  passion,  Northern 
pride,  Northern  ambition,  and  Northern  preju 
dices,  against  Southern  people,  the  Southern 
States,  and  Southern  institutions.  The  leaders 
of  that  party  hope  that  they  will  be  able  to 
unite  the  Northern  States  in  one  great  sectional 
party,  and  inasmuch  as  the  North  is  the  stronger 
section,  that  they  will  thus  be  enabled  to  outj 
vote,  conquer,  govern,  and  control  the  South. 
Hence  you  find  that  they  now  make  speeches 
advocating  principles  and  measures  which  can 
not  be  defended  in  any  slave-holding^  State  of 
this  Union.  Is  there  a  Republican  residing  in 
Galesburg  who  can  travel  into  Kentucky,  and 
carry  his  principles  with  him  across  the  Ohio? 
What  Republican  from  Massachusetts  can  visit 
the  Old  Dominion  without  leaving  his  princi- 


248  Stephen   A.   Douglas        [Oct.  7 

pies  behind  him  when  he  crosses  Mason's  and 
Dixon's  line?  Permit  me  to  say  to  you  in  per 
fect  good  humor,  but  in  all  sincerity,  that  no 
political  creed  is  sound  which  cannot  be  pro 
claimed  fearlessly  in  every  State  of  this  Union 
where  the  Federal  Constitution  is  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land.  Not  only  is  this  Republican 
party  unable  to  proclaim  its  principles  alike  in 
the  North  and  in  the  South,  in  the  free  States 
and  in  the  slave  States,  but  it  cannot  even  pro 
claim  them  in  the  same  forms  and  give  them  the 
same  strength  and  meaning  in  all  parts  of  the 
same  State.  My  friend  Lincoln  finds  it  ex 
tremely  difficult  to  manage  a  debate  in  the  cen 
tral  part  of  the  State,  where  there  is  a  mixture 
of  men  from  the  North  and  the  South.  In  the 
extreme  northern  part  of  Illinois  he  can  pro 
claim  as  bold  and  radical  Abolitionism  as  ever 
Giddings,  Lovejoy,  or  Garrison  enunciated ;  but 
when  he  gets  down  a  little  further  south  he 
claims  that  he  is  an  old-line  Whig,  a  disciple  of 
Henry  Clay,  and  declares  that  he  still  adheres 
to  the  old-line  Whig  creed,  and  has  nothing 
whatever  to  ido  with  Abolitionism,  or  negro 
equality,  or  negro  citizenship.  I  once  before 
hinted  this  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  a  public  speech, 
and  at  Charleston  he  defied  me  to  show  that 
there  was  any  difference  between  his  speeches 
in  the  north  and  in  the  south,  and  that  they  were 


1858]          Speech  at  Galesburg  249 

not  in  strict  harmony.  I  will  now  call  your 
attention  to  two  of  them,  and  you  can  then  say 
whether  you  would  be  apt  to  believe  that  the 
same  man  ever  uttered  both.  In  a  speech  in 
reply  to  me  at  Chicago  in  July  last,  Mr.  Lin 
coln,  in  speaking  of  the  equality  of  tfie  negro 
with  the  white  man,  used  the  following  lan 
guage: 

I  should  like  to  know  if,  taking  this  old  Declara 
tion  of  Independence,  which  declares  that  all  men  are 
equal  upon  principle,  and  making  exceptions  to  it, 
where  will  it  stop?  If  one  man  says  it  does  not  mean 
a  negro,  why  may  not  another  man  say  it  does  not 
mean  another  man?  If  the  Declaration  is  not  the 
truth,  let  us  get  the  statute-book  in  which  we  find  it 
and  tear  it  out.  Who  is  so  bold  as  to  do  it?  If  it  is 
not  true,  let  us  tear  it  out. 

You  find  that  Mr.  Lincoln  there  proposed 
that  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,  declaring  all  men  to  be  born  equal, 
did  not  include  the  negro  and  put  him  on  an 
equality  with  the  white  man,  that  we  should 
take  the  statute-book  and  tear  it  out.  He  there 
took  the  ground  that  the  negro  race  is  included 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  as  the  equal 
of  the  white  race,  and  that  there  could  be  no 
such  thing  as  a  distinction  in  the  races,  making 
one  superior  and  the  other  inferior.  I  read 
now  from  the  same  speech : 


250  Stephen   A.   Douglas        [Oct.  7 

My  friends  [he  says],  I  have  detained  you  about  as 
long  as  I  desire  to  do,  and  I  have  only  to  say  let  us 
discard  all  this  quibbling  about  this  man  and  the  other 
man  —  this  race  and  that  race  and  the  other  race  being 
inferior,  and  therefore  they  must  be  placed  in  an  in 
ferior  position,  discarding  our  standard  that  we  have 
left  us.  Let  us  discard  all  these  things,  and  unite  as 
one  people  throughout  this  land,  until  we  shall  once 
more  stand  up  declaring  that  all  men  are  created 
equal. 

["That's  right,"  etc.] 

Yes,  I  have  no  doubt  that  you  think  it  is  right, 
but  the  Lincoln  men  down  in  Coles,  Tazewell, 
and  Sangamon  counties  do  not  think  it  is  right. 
In  the  conclusion  of  the  same  speech,  talking 
to  the  Chicago  Abolitionists,  he  said:  "I  leave 
you,  hoping  that  the  lamp  of  liberty  will  burn 
in  your  bosoms  until  there  shall  no  longer  be  a 
doubt  that  all  men  are  created  free  and  equal.'* 
["Good,  good!"]  Well,  you  say  good  to  that, 
and  you  are  going  to  vote  for  Lincoln  because 
he  holds  that  doctrine.  I  will  not  blame  you 
for  supporting  him  on  that  ground,  but  I  will 
show  you,  in  immediate  contrast  with  that  doc 
trine,  what  Mr.  Lincoln  said  down  in  Egypt  in 
order  to  get  votes  in  that  locality  where  they 
do  not  hold  to  such  a  doctrine.  In  a  joint  dis 
cussion  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself,  at 
Charleston,  I  think,  on  the  i8th  of  last  month, 


1858]         Speech  at  Galesburg  251 

Mr.  Lincoln,  referring  to  this  subject,  used  the 
following  language: 

I  will  say,  then,  that  I  am  not  nor  ever  have  been 
in  favor  of  bringing  about  in  any  way  the  social  and 
political  equality  of  the  white  and  black  races;  that 
I  am  not  nor  ever  have  been  in  favor  of  making 
voters  of  the  free  negroes,  or  jurors,  or  qualifying 
them  to  hold  office,  or  having  them  to  marry  with 
white  people.  I  will  say  in  addition,  that  there  is  a 
physical  difference  between  the  white  and  black  races, 
which.  I  suppose,  will  forever  forbid  the  two  races 
living  together  upon  terms  of  social  and  political 
equality,  and  inasmuch  as  they  cannot  so  live,  that 
while  they  do  remain  together,  there  must  be  the 
position  of  superior  and  inferior,  that  I  as  much  as 
any  other  man  am  in  favor  of  the  superior  position 
being  assigned  to  the  white  man. 

["Good  for  Lincoln!"] 

Fellow-citizens,  here  you  find  men  hurrahing 
for  Lincoln,  and  saying  that  he  did  right  when 
in  one  part  of  the  State  he  stood  up  for  negro 
equality,  and  in  another  part,  for  political  effect, 
discarded  the  doctrine,  and  declared  that  there 
always  must  be  a  superior  and  inferior  race. 
Abolitionists  up  north  are  expected  and  required 
to  vote  for  Lincoln  because  he  goes  for  the 
equality  of  the  races,  holding  that  by  the  Dec 
laration  of  Independence  the  white  man  and 
the  negro  were  created  equal,  and  endowed  by 


252  Stephen  A.   Douglas        [Oct.  7 

the  divine  law  with  that  equality,  and  down 
south  he  tells  the  Old  Whigs,  the  Kentuckians, 
Virginians,  and  Tennesseeans  that  there  is  a 
physical  difference  in  the  races,  making  one  su 
perior  and  the  other  inferior,  and  that  he  is  in 
favor  of  maintaining  the  superiority  of  the  white 
race  over  the  negro. 

Now,  how  can  you  reconcile  those  two  posi 
tions  of  Mr.  Lincoln?  He  is  to  be  voted  for  in 
the  south  as  a  pro-slavery  man,  and  he  is  to  be 
voted  for  in  the  north  as  an  Abolitionist.  Up 
here  he  thinks  it  is  all  nonsense  to  talk  about  a 
difference  between  the  races,  and  says  that  we 
must  "discard  all  quibbling  about  this  race  and 
that  race  and  the  other  race  being  inferior,  and 
therefore  they  must  be  placed  in  an  inferior  po 
sition."  Down  south  he  makes  this  "quibble" 
about  this  race  and  that  race  and  the  other  race 
being  inferior  as  the  creed  of  his  party,  and  de 
clares  that  the  negro  can  never  be  elevated  to 
the  position  of  the  white  man.  You  find  that 
his  political  meetings  are  called  by  different 
names  in  different  counties  in  the  State.  Here 
they  are  called  Republican  meetings,  but  in  old 
Tazewell,  where  Lincoln  made  a  speech  last 
Tuesday,  he  did  not  address  a  Republican  meet 
ing,  but  "a  grand  rally  of  the  Lincoln  men." 
There  are  very  few  Republicans  there,  because 
Tazewell  County  is  filled  with  old  Virginians 


1858]          Speech  at  Galesburg  253 

and  Kentuckians,  all  of  whom  are  Whigs  or 
Democrats,  and  if  Mr.  Lincoln  had  called  an 
Abolition  or  Republican  meeting  there,  he 
would  not  get  many  votes.  Go  down  into 
Egypt,  and  you  will  find  that  he  and  his  party 
are  operating  under  an  alias  there,  which  his 
friend  Trumbull  has  given  them,  in  order  that 
they  may  cheat  the  people.  When  I  was  down 
in  Monroe  County  a  few  weeks  ago  addressing 
the  people,  I  saw  handbills  posted  announcing 
that  Mr.  Trumbull  was  going  to  speak  in  be 
half  of  Lincoln,  and  what  do  you  think  the 
name  of  his  party  was  there?  Why,  the  "Free 
Democracy."  Mr.  Trumbull  and  Mr.  Jehu 
Baker  were  announced  to  address  the  Free  De 
mocracy  of  Monroe  County,  and  the  bill  was 
signed  "Many  Free  Democrats."  The  reason 
that  Mr.  Lincoln  and  his  party  adopted  the 
name  of  "Free  Democracy"  down  there  was 
because  Monroe  County  has  always  been  an 
old-fashioned  Democratic  county,  and  hence  it 
was  necessary  to  make  the  people  believe  that 
they  were  Democrats,  sympathized  with  them, 
and  were  fighting  for  Lincoln  as  Democrats. 
Come  up  to  Springfield,  where  Lincoln  now 
lives  and  always  has  lived,  and  you  find  that 
the  convention  of  his  party  which  assembled  to 
nominate  candidates  for  the  legislature,  who  are 
expected  to  vote  for  him  if  elected,  dare  not 


254  Stephen   A.   Douglas        [Oct.  7 

adopt  the  name  of  Republican,  but  assembled 
under  the  title  of  "All  opposed  to  the  Democ 
racy."  Thus  you  find  that  Mr.  Lincoln's  creed 
cannot  travel  through  even  one  half  of  the  coun 
ties  of  this  State,  but  that  it  changes  its  hues, 
and  becomes  lighter  and  lighter  as  it  travels 
from  the  extreme  north,  until  it  is  nearly  white 
when  it  reaches  the  extreme  south  end  of  the 
State.  I  ask  you,  my  friends,  why  cannot  Re 
publicans  avow  their  principles  alike  every 
where?  I  would  despise  myself  if  I  thought 
that  I  was  procuring  your  votes  by  concealing 
my  opinions,  and  by  avowing  one  set  of  prin 
ciples  in  one  part  of  the  State,  and  a  different 
set  in  another  part. 

If  I  do  not  truly  and  honorably  represent 
your  feelings  and  principles,  then  I  ought  not 
to  be  your  senator;  and  I  will  never  conceal  my 
opinions,  or  modify  or  change  them  a  hairV 
breadth,  in  order  to  get  votes.  I  tell  you  that 
this  Chicago  doctrine  of  Lincoln's — declaring 
that  the  negro  and  the  white  man  are  made 
equal  by  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and 
by  Divine  Providence — is  a  monstrous  heresy. 
The  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
never  dreamed  of  the  negro  when  they  were 
writing  that  document.  They  referred  to  white 
men,  to  men  of  European  birth  and  European 
descent,  when  they  declared  the  equality  of  all 


1858]          Speech   at  Galesburg  255 

men.  I  see  a  gentleman  there  in  the  crowd 
shaking  his  head.  Let  me  remind  him  that 
when  Thomas  Jefferson  wrote  that  document  he 
was  the  owner,  and  so  continued  until  his  death, 
of  a  large  number  of  slaves.  Did  he  intend  to 
say  in  that  Declaration  that  his  negro  slaves, 
which  he  held  and  treated  as  property,  were 
created  his  equals  by  divine  law,  and  that  he 
was  violating  the  law  of  God  every  day  of  his 
life  by  holding  them  as  slaves?  It  must  be 
borne  in  mind  that  when  that  Declaration  was 
put  forth,  every  one  of  the  thirteen  colonies 
were  slave-holding  colonies,  and  every  man  who 
signed  that  instrument  represented  a  slave- 
holding  constituency.  Recollect,  also,  that  no 
one  of  them  emancipated  his  slaves,  much  less 
put  them  on  an  equality  with  himself,  after  he 
signed  the  Declaration.  On  the  contrary,  they 
all  continued  to  hold  their  negroes  as  slaves  dur 
ing  the  Revolutionary  War.  Now,  do  you  be 
lieve — are  you  willing  to  have  it  said — that 
every  man  who  signed  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence  declared  the  negro  his  equal,  and  then 
was  hypocrite  enough  to  hold  him  as  a  slave, 
in  violation  of  what  he  believed  to  be  the  divine 
law?  And  yet  when  you  say  that  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence  includes  the  negro,  you 
charge  the  signers  of  it  with  hypocrisy. 

I  say  to  you  frankly,  that  in  my  opinion  this 


256  Stephen  A.   Douglas       [Oct.  r 

government  was  made  by  our  fathers  on  the 
white  basis.  It  was  made  by  white  men  for 
the  benefit  of  white  men  and  their  posterity  for 
ever,  and  was  intended  to  be  administered  by 
white  men  in  all  time  to  come.  But  while  I 
hold  that  under  our  Constitution  and  political 
system  the  negro  is  not  a  citizen,  cannot  be  a 
citizen,  and  ought  not  to  be  a  citizen,  it  does 
not  follow  by  any  means  that  he  should  be  a 
slave.  On  the  contrary,  it  does  follow  that  the 
negro  as  an  inferior  race  ought  to  possess  every 
right,  every  privilege,  every  immunity  which 
he  can  safely  exercise  consistent  with  the  safety 
of  the  society  in  which  he  lives.  Humanity  re 
quires,  and  Christianity  commands,  that  you 
shall  extend  to  every  inferior  being,  and  every 
dependent  being,  all  the  privileges,  immunities, 
and  advantages  which  can  be  granted  to  them 
consistent  with  the  safety  of  society.  If  you 
ask  me  the  nature  and  extent  of  these  privileges, 
I  answer  that  that  is  a  question  which  the  people 
of  each  State  must  decide  for  themselves.  Illi 
nois  has  decided  that  question  for  herself.  We 
have  said  that  in  this  State  the  negro  shall  not 
be  a  slave,  nor  shall  he  be  a  citizen.  Kentucky 
holds  a  different  doctrine.  New  York  holds 
one  different  from  either,  and  Maine  one  differ 
ent  from  all.  Virginia,  in  her  policy  on  this 
question,  differs  in  many  respects  from  the  oth- 


1858]          Speech  at  Galesburg  257 

ers,  and  so  on,  until  there  are  hardly  two  States 
whose  policy  is  exactly  alike  in  regard  to  the 
relation  of  the  white  man  and  the  negro.  Nor 
can  you  reconcile  them  and  make  them  alike. 
Each  State  must  do  as  it  pleases.  Illinois  had 
as  much  right  to  adopt  the  policy  which  we  have 
on  that  subject  as  Kentucky  had  to  adopt  a  dif 
ferent  policy.  The  great  principle  of  this  gov 
ernment  is  that  each  State  has  the  right  to  do  as 
it  pleases  on  all  these  questions,  and  no  other 
State  or  power  on  earth  has  the  right  to  inter 
fere  with  us,  or  complain  of  us  merely  because 
our  system  differs  from  theirs.  In  the  com 
promise  measures  of  1850,  Mr.  Clay  declared 
that  this  great  principle  ought  to  exist  in  the 
Territories  as  well  as  in  the  States,  and  I  reas 
serted  his  doctrine  in  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska 
bill  in  1854. 

But  Mr.  Lincoln  cannot  be  made  to  under 
stand,  and  those  who  are  determined  to  vote  for 
him,  no  matter  whether  he  is  a  pro-slavery  man 
in  the  south  and  a  negro-equality  advocate  in 
the  north,  cannot  be  made  to  understand,  how 
it  is  that  in  a  Territory  the  people  can  do  as 
they  please  on  the  slavery  question  under  the 
Dred  Scott  decision.  Let  us  see  whether  I  can 
not  explain  it  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  impartial 
men.  Chief  Justice  Taney  has  said,  in  his  opin 
ion  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  that  a  negro  slave, 


258  Stephen   A.    Douglas        [Oct.  7 

being  property,  stands  on  an  equal  footing  with 
other  property,  and  that  the  owner  may  carry 
them  into  United  States  territory  the  same  as  he 
does  other  property.  Suppose  any  two  of  you 
neighbors  shall  conclude  to  go  to  Kansas,  one 
carrying  $100,000  worth  of  negro  slaves  and 
the  other  $100,000  worth  of  mixed  merchandise, 
including  quantities  of  liquors.  You  both  agree 
that  under  that  decision  you  may  carry  your 
property  to  Kansas,  but  when  you  get  it  there, 
the  merchant  who  is  possessed  of  the  liquors  is 
met  by  the  Maine  liquor  law,  which  prohibits 
the  sale  or  use  of  his  property,  and  the  owner  of 
the  slaves  is  met  by  equally  unfriendly  legisla 
tion,  which  makes  his  property  worthless  after 
he  gets  it  there.  What  is  the  right  to  carry 
your  property  into  the  Territory  worth  to  either, 
when  unfriendly  legislation  in  the  Territory 
renders  it  worthless  after  you  get  it  there?  The 
slaveholder,  when  he  gets  his  slaves  there, 
finds  that  there  is  no  local  law  to  protect 
him  in  holding  them,  no  slave  code,  no  po 
lice  regulations  maintaining  and  supporting 
him  in  his  right,  and  he  discovers  at  once 
that  the  absence  of  such  friendly  legislation  ex 
cludes  his  property  from  the  Territory  just  as 
irresistibly  as  if  there  was  a  positive  constitu 
tional  prohibition  excluding  it. 

Thus  you  find  it  is  with  any  kind  of  property 


1858]         Speech  at  Galesburg  259 

in  a  Territory;  it  depends  for  its  protection  on 
the  local  and  municipal  law.  If  the  people  of 
a  Territory  want  slavery,  they  make  friendly 
legislation  to  introduce  it,  but  if  they  do  not 
want  it,  they  withhold  all  protection  from  it, 
and  then  it  cannot  exist  there.  Such  was  the 
view  taken  on  the  subject  by  different  Southern 
men  when  the  Nebraska  bill  passed.  See  the 
speech  of  Mr.  Orr,  of  South  Carolina,  the  pres 
ent  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of 
Congress,  made  at  that  time,  and  there  you  will 
find  this  whole  doctrine  argued  out  at  full 
length.  Read  the  speeches  of  other  Southern 
congressmen,  senators,  and  representatives,  made 
in  1854,  and  you  will  find  that  they  took  the  same 
view  of  the  subject  as  Mr.  Orr — that  slavery 
could  never  be  forced  on  a  people  who  did  not 
want  it.  I  hold  that  in  this  country  there  is  no 
power  on  the  face  of  the  globe  that  can  force 
any  institution  on  an  unwilling  people.  The 
great  fundamental  principle  of  our  government 
is  that  the  people  of  each  State  and  each  Terri 
tory  shall  be  left  perfectly  free  to  decide  for 
themselves  what  shall  be  the  nature  and  char 
acter  of  their  institutions.  When  this  govern 
ment  was  made,  it  was  based  on  that  principle. 
At  the  time  of  its  formation  there  were  twelve 
slaveholding  States,  and  one  free  State,  in  this 
Union.  Suppose  this  doctrine  of  Mr.  Lincoln 


260  Stephen  A.    Douglas        [Oct.  7 

and  the  Republicans,  of  uniformity  of  laws  of 
all  the  States  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  had  pre 
vailed;  suppose  Mr.  Lincoln  himself  had  been 
a  member  of  the  convention  which  framed  the 
Constitution,  and  that  he  had  risen  in  that  au 
gust  body,  and,  addressing  the  Father  of  his 
Country,  had  said  as  he  did  at  Springfield: 

A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.  I 
believe  this  government  cannot  endure  permanently 
half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union 
to  be  dissolved  —  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall, 
but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will 
become  all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other. 

What  do  you  think  would  have  been  the  re 
sult?  Suppose  he  had  made  that  convention 
believe  that  doctrine,  and  they  had  acted  upon 
it,  what  do  you  think  would  have  been  the  re 
sult?  Do  you  believe  that  one  free  State  would 
have  outvoted  the  twelve  slaveholding  States, 
and  thus  abolished  slavery?  On  the  contrary, 
would  not  the  twelve  slaveholding  States  have 
outvoted  the  one  free  State,  and  under  his  doc 
trine  have  fastened  slavery  by  an  irrevocable 
constitutional  provision  upon  every  inch  of  the 
American  republic?  Thus  you  see  that  the  doc 
trine  he  now  advocates,  if  proclaimed  at  the  be 
ginning  of  the  government,  would  have  estab 
lished  slavery  everywhere  throughout  the  Amer- 


1858]          Speech  at  Galesburg  261 

lean  continent;  and  are  you  willing,  now  that 
we  have  the  majority  section,  to  exercise  a  power 
which  we  never  would  have  submitted  to  when 
we  were  in  the  minority?  If  the  Southern 
States  had  attempted  to  control  our  institutions, 
and  make  the  States  all  slave  when  they  had  the 
power,  I  ask  would  you  have  submitted  to  it? 
If  you  would  not,  are  you  willing,  now  that  we 
have  become  the  strongest  under  that  great  prin 
ciple  of  self-government  that  allows  each  State 
to  do  as  it  pleases,  to  attempt  to  control  the 
Southern  institutions?  Then,  my  friends,  I  say 
to  you  that  there  is  but  one  path  of  peace  in  this 
republic,  and  that  is  to  administer  this  govern 
ment  as  our  fathers  made  it,  divided  into  free 
and  slave  States,  allowing  each  State  to  decide 
for  itself  whether  it  wants  slavery  or  not.  If 
Illinois  will  settle  the  slavery  question  for  her 
self,  and  mind  her  own  business  and  let  her 
neighbors  alone,  we  will  be  at  peace  with  Ken 
tucky,  and  every  other  Southern  State.  If  every 
other  State  in  the  Union  will  do  the  same,  there 
will  be  peace  between  the  North  and  South, 
and  in  the  whole  Union. 


262  Abraham   Lincoln  [Oct.  7 


Mr.   Lincoln's  Reply   in   the   Galesburg  Joint 
Debate. 

MY  FELLOW-CITIZENS:  A  very 
large  portion  of  the  speech  which 
Judge  Douglas  has  addressed  to  you 
has  previously  been  delivered  and  put  in  print. 
I  do  not  mean  that  for  a  hit  upon  the  judge  at 
all.  If  I  had  not  been  interrupted,  I  was  going 
to  say  that  such  an  answer  as  I  was  able  to  make 
to  a  very  large  portion  of  it,  had  already  been 
more  than  once  made  and  published.  There 
has  been  an  opportunity  afforded  to  the  public 
to  see  our  respective  views  upon  the  topics  dis 
cussed  in  a  large  portion  of  the  speech  which 
he  has  just  delivered.  I  make  these  remarks 
for  the  purpose  of  excusing  myself  for  not  pass 
ing  over  the  entire  ground  that  the  judge  has 
traversed.  I,  however,  desire  to  take  up  some 
of  the  points  that  he  has  attended  to,  and  ask 
your  attention  to  them,  and  I  shall  follow  him 
backward  upon  some  notes  which  I  have  taken, 
reversing  the  order  and  beginning  where  he 
concluded. 

The  judge  has  alluded  to  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  and  insisted  that  negroes  are  not 


1858]  Reply  at  Galesburg  263 

included  in  that  Declaration;  and  that  it  is,  a 
slander  upon  the  framers  of  that  instrument  to 
suppose  that  negroes  were  meant  therein;  and 
he  asks  you:  Is  it  possible  to  believe  that  Mr. 
Jefferson,  who  penned  the  immortal  paper, 
could  have  supposed  himself  applying  the  lan 
guage  of  that  instrument  to  the  negro  race,  and 
yet  held  a  portion  of  that  race  in  slavery? 
Would  he  not  at  once  have  freed  them?  I  only 
have  to  remark  upon  this  part  of  the  judge's 
speech  (and  that,  too,  very  briefly,  for  I  shall 
not  detain  myself,  or  you,  upon  that  point  for 
any  great  length  of  time),  that  I  believe  the 
entire  records  of  the  world,  from  the  date  of 
the  Declaration  of  Indpendence  up  to  within 
three  years  ago,  may  be  searched  in  vain  for 
one  single  affirmation,  from  one  single  man,  that 
the  negro  was  not  included  in  the  Declaration 
of  Independence;  I  think  I  may  defy  Judge 
Douglas  to  show  that  he  ever  said  so,  that  Wash 
ington  ever  said  so,  that  any  president  ever  said 
so,  that  any  member  of  Congress  ever  said  so, 
or  that  any  living  man  upon  the  whole  earth 
ever  said  so,  until  the  necessities  of  the  present 
policy  of  the  Democratic  party,  in  regard  to 
slavery,  had  to  invent  that  affirmation.  And  I 
will  remind  Judge  Douglas  and  this  audience 
that  while  Mr.  Jefferson  was  the  owner  of  slaves, 
as  undoubtedly  he  was,  in  speaking  upon  this 


264  Abraham  Lincoln          [Oct.  7 

very  subject,  he  used  the  strong  language  that 
"he  trembled  for  his  country  when  he  remem 
bered  that  God  was  just" ;  and  I  will  offer  the 
highest  premium  in  my  power  to  Judge  Doug 
las  if  he  will  show  that  he,  in  all  his  life,  ever 
uttered  a  sentiment  at  all  akin  to  that  of  Jef 
ferson. 

The  next  thing  to  which  I  will  ask  your  at 
tention  is  the  judge's  comments  upon  the  fact, 
as  he  assumes  it  to  be,  that  we  cannot  call  our 
public  meetings  as  Republican  meetings ;  and  he 
instances  Tazewell  County  as  one  of  the  places 
where  the  friends  of  Lincoln  have  called  a  pub 
lic  meeting  and  have  not  dared  to  name  it  a 
Republican  meeting.  He  instances  Monroe 
County  as  another  where  Judge  Trumbull  and 
Jehu  Baker  addressed  the  persons  whom  the 
judge  assumes  to  be  friends  of  Lincoln,  calling 
them  the  "Free  Democracy."  I  have  the  honor 
to  inform  Judge  Douglas  that  he  spoke  in  that 
very  county  of  Tazewell  last  Saturday,  and  I 
was  there  on  Tuesday  last,  and  when  he  spoke 
there  he  spoke  under  a  call  not  venturing  to  use 
the  word  "Democrat."  [Turning  to  Judge 
Douglas.]  What  think  you  of  this? 

So,  again,  there  is  another  thing  to  which  I 
would  ask  the  judge's  attention  upon  this  sub 
ject.  In  the  contest  of  1856  his  party  delighted 
to  call  themselves  together  as  the  "National 


1858]  Reply  at  Galesburg  265 

Democracy,"  but  now,  if  there  should  be  a  no 
tice  put  up  anywhere  for  a  meeting  of  the  "Na 
tional  Democracy,"  Judge  Douglas  and  his 
friends  would  not  come.  They  would  not  sup 
pose  themselves  invited.  They  would  under 
stand  that  it  was  a  call  for  those  hateful 
postmasters  whom  he  talks  about. 

Now  a  few  words  in  regard  to  these  extracts 
from  speeches  of  mine  which  Judge  Douglas 
has  read  to  you,  and  which  he  supposes  are  in 
very  great  contrast  to  each  other.  Those 
speeches  have  been  before  the  public  for  a  con 
siderable  time,  and  if  they  have  any  inconsis 
tency  in  them,  if  there  is  any  conflict  in  them,  the 
public  have  been  able  to  detect  it.  When  the 
judge  says,  in  speaking  on  this  subject,  that  I 
make  speeches  of  one  sort  for  the  people  of  the 
northern  end  of  the  State,  and  of  a  different  sort 
for  the  southern  people,  he  assumes  that  I  do 
not  understand  that  my  speeches  will  be  put  in 
print  and  read  north  and  south.  I  knew  all  the 
while  that  the  speech  that  I  made  at  Chicago 
and  the  one  I  made  at  Jonesboro  and  the  one 
at  Charleston  would  all  be  put  in  print,  and  all 
the  reading  and  intelligent  men  in  the  commun 
ity  would  see  them  and  know  all  about  my 
opinions;  and  I  have  not  supposed,  and  do  not 
now  suppose,  that  there  is  any  conflict  whatever 
between  them.  But  the  judge  will  have  it  that 


266  Abraham   Lincoln  [Oct.  7 

if  we  do  not  confess  that  there  is  a  sort  of  in 
equality   between    the   white   and   black   races 
which  justifies  us  in  making  them  slaves,  we 
must,  then,  insist  that  there  is  a  degree  of  equal 
ity  that  requires  us  to  make  them  our  wives. 
Now,  I  have  all  the  while  taken  a  broad  dis 
tinction  in  regard  to  that  matter;  and  that  is  all 
there  is  in  these  different  speeches  which  he 
arrays  here,  and  the  entire  reading  of  either  of 
the  speeches  will  show  that  that  distinction  was 
made.     Perhaps   by   taking   two   parts   of   the 
same  speech  he  could  have  got  up  as  much  of  a 
conflict  as  the  one  he  has  found.     I  have  all  the 
while  maintained  that  in  so  far  as  it  should  be 
insisted  that  there  was  an  equality  between  the 
white  and  black  races  that  should  produce  a 
perfect  social  and  political  equality,  it  was  an 
impossibility.  This  you  have  seen  in  my  printed 
speeches,  and  with  it  I  have  said  that  in  their 
right  to  "life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  hap 
piness,"  as  proclaimed  in  that  old  Declaration, 
the  inferior  races  are  our  equals.     And  these 
declarations  I  have  constantly  made  in  reference 
to  the  abstract  moral  question,  to  contemplate 
and  consider  when  we  are  legislating  about  any 
new  country  which  is  not  already  cursed  with 
the  actual  presence  of  the  evil — slavery.     I  have 
never  manifested  any  impatience  with  the  neces 
sities  that  spring  from  the  actual  presence  of 


1858]          Reply  at  Galesburg  267 

black  people  amongst  us,  and  the  actual  exist 
ence  of  slavery  amongst  us  where  it  does  already 
exist;  but  I  have  insisted  that,  in  legislating 
for  new  countries  where  it  does  not  exist,  there  is 
no  just  rule  other  than  that  of  moral  and  abstract 
right.  With  reference  to  those  new  countries, 
those  maxims  as  to  the  right  of  a  people  to  "life, 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness"  were  the 
just  rules  to  be  constantly  referred  to.  There 
is  no  misunderstanding  this,  except  by  men  in 
terested  to  misunderstand  it.  I  take  it  that  I 
have  to  address  an  intelligent  and  reading  com 
munity  who  will  peruse  what  I  say,  weigh  it, 
and  then  judge  whether  I  advance  improper  or 
unsound  views,  or  whether  I  advance  hypo 
critical  and  deceptive  and  contrary  views  in  dif 
ferent  portions  of  the  country.  I  believe  my 
self  to  be  guilty  of  no  such  thing  as  the  latter, 
though,  of  course,  I  cannot  claim  that  I  am  en 
tirely  free  from  all  error  in  the  opinions  I  ad 
vance. 

The  judge  has  also  detained  us  awhile  in 
regard  to  the  distinction  between  his  party  and 
our  party.  His  he  assumes  to  be  a  national 
party — ours  a  sectional  one.  He  does  this  in 
asking  the  question  whether  this  country  has 
any  interest  in  the  maintenance  of  the  Republi 
can  party?  He  assumes  that  our  party  is  alto 
gether  sectional — that  the  party  to  which  he 


268  Abraham   Lincoln  [Oct.  7 

adheres  is  national;  and  the  argument  is  that 
no  party  can  be  a  rightful  party — can  be  based 
upon  rightful  principles — unless  it  can  an 
nounce  its  principles  everywhere.  I  presume 
that  Judge  Douglas  could  not  go  into  Russia 
and  announce  the  doctrine  of  our  national 
Democracy;  he  could  not  denounce  the  doctrine 
of  kings  and  emperors  and  monarchies  in  Rus 
sia  ;  and  it  may  be  true  of  this  country,  that  in 
some  places  we  may  not  be  able  to  proclaim 
a  doctrine  as  clearly  true  as  the  truth  of  Demo 
cracy,  because  there  is  a  section  so  directly  op 
posed  to  it  that  they  will  not  tolerate  us  in  doing 
so.  Is  it  the  true  test  of  the  soundness  of  a  doc 
trine,  that  in  some  places  people  won't  let  you 
proclaim  it?  Is  that  the  way  to  test  the  truth 
of  any  doctrine?  Why,  I  understand  that  at 
one  time  the  people  of  Chicago  would  not  let 
Judge  Douglas  preach  a  certain  favorite  doc 
trine  of  his.  I  commend  to  his  consideration 
the  question,  whether  he  takes  that  as  a  test  of 
the  unsoundness  of  what  he  wanted  to  preach. 

There  is  another  thing  to  which  I  wish  to  ask 
attention  for  a  little  while  on  this  occasion. 
What  has  always  been  the  evidence  brought  for 
ward  to  prove  that  the  Republican  party  is  a 
sectional  party?  The  main  one  was  that  in  the 
Southern  portion  of  the  Union  the  people  did 
not  let  the  Republicans  proclaim  their  doctrines 


1858]          Reply   at  Galesburg  269 

amongst  them.  That  has  been  the  main  evi 
dence  brought  forward — that  they  had  no  sup 
porters,  or  substantially  none;  in  the  slave 
States.  The  South  have  not  taken  hold  of  our 
principles  as  we  announce  them;  nor  does  Judge 
Douglas  now  grapple  with  those  principles. 
We  have  a  Republican  State  platform,  laid 
down  in  Springfield  in  June  last,  stating  our 
position  all  the  way  through  the  questions  be 
fore  the  country.  We  are  now  far  advanced 
in  this  canvass.  Judge  Douglas  and  I  have 
made  perhaps  forty  speeches  apiece,  and  we 
have  now  for  the  fifth  time  met  face  to  face  in 
debate,  and  up  to  this  day  I  have  not  found 
either  Judge  Douglas  or  any  friend  of  his  tak 
ing  hold  of  the  Republican  platform  or  laying 
his  finger  upon  anything  in  it  that  is  wrong. 
I  ask  you  all  to  recollect  that.  Judge  Douglas 
turns  away  from  the  platform  of  principles  to 
the  fact  that  he  can  find  people  somewhere  who 
will  not  allow  us  to  announce  those  principles. 
If  he  had  great  confidence  that  our  principles 
were  wrong,  he  would  take  hold  of  them  and 
demonstrate  them  to  be  wrong.  But  he  does  not 
do  so.  The  only  evidence  he  has  of  their  being 
wrong  is  in  the  fact  that  there  are  people  who 
won't  allow  us  to  preach  them.  I  ask  again  is 
that  the  way  to  test  the  soundness  of  a  doctrine? 
I  ask  his  attention  also  to  the  fact  that  by  the 


270  Abraham  Lincoln          [Oct.  ^ 

rule  of  nationality  he  is  himself  fast  becoming 
sectional.  I  ask  his  atention  to  the  fact  that 
his  speeches  would  not  go  as  current  now  south 
of  the  Ohio  River  as  they  have  formerly  gone 
there.  I  ask  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  he 
felicitates  himself  to-day  that  all  the  Democrats 
of  the  free  States  are  agreeing  with  him,  while 
he  omits  to  tell  us  that  the  Democrats  of  any 
slave  State  agree  with  him.  If  he  has  not 
thought  of  this,  I  commend  to  his  consideration 
the  evidence  in  his  own  declaration,  on  this  day, 
of  his  becoming  sectional  too.  I  see  it  rapidly 
approaching.  Whatever  may  be  the  result  of 
this  ephemeral  contest  between  Judge  Douglas 
and  myself,  I  see  the  day  rapidly  approaching 
when  his  pill  of  sectionalism,  which  he  has  been 
thrusting  down  the  throats  of  Republicans  for 
years  past,  will  be  crowded  down  his  own 
throat. 

Now  in  regard  to  what  Judge  Douglas  said  (in 
the  beginning  of  his  speech)  about  the  compro 
mise  of  1850  containing  the  principle  of  the  Ne 
braska  bill;  although  I  have  often  presented  my 
views  upon  that  subject,  yet  as  I  have  not  done 
so  in  this  canvass,  I  will,  if  you  please,  detain 
you  a  little  with  them.  I  have  always  main 
tained  so  far  as  I  was  able  that  there  was  noth 
ing  of  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill  in  the 
compromise  of  1850  at  all — nothing  whatever. 


1858]  Reply  at   Galesburg  271 

Where  can  you  find  the  principle  of  the  Ne 
braska  bill  in  that  compromise?  If  anywhere, 
in  the  two  pieces  of  the  compromise  organizing 
the  Territories  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah.  It 
was  expressly  provided  in  these  two  acts  that, 
when  they  came  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union, 
they  should  be  admitted  with  or  without  slav 
ery,  as  they  should  choose,  by  their  own  consti 
tutions.  Nothing  was  said  in  either  of  those 
acts  as  to  what  was  to  be  done  in  relation  to 
slavery  during  the  territorial  existence  of  those 
Territories,  while  Henry  Clay  constantly  made 
the  declaration  (Judge  Douglas  recognizing 
him  as  a  leader)  that,  in  his  opinion,  the  old 
Mexican  laws  would  control  that  question  dur 
ing  the  territorial  existence,  and  that  these  old 
Mexican  laws  excluded  slavery.  How  can  that 
be  used  as  a  principle  for  declaring  that  during 
the  territorial  existence,  as  well  as  at  the  time  of 
framing  the  constitution,  the  people,  if  you 
please,  might  have  slaves  if  they  wanted  them? 
I  am  not  discussing  the  question  whether  it  is 
right  or  wrong;  but  how  are  the  New  Mexican 
and  Utah  laws  patterns  for  the  Nebraska  bill? 
I  maintain  that  the  organization  of  Utah  and 
New  Mexico  did  not  establish  a  general  prin 
ciple  at  all.  It  had  no  feature  establishing  a 
general  principle.  The  acts  to  which  I  have 
referred  were  a  part  of  a  general  system  of  com- 


272  Abraham   Lincoln          [Oct.  7 

promises.  They  did  not  lay  down  what  was 
proposed  as  a  regular  policy  for  the  Territories ; 
only  an  agreement  in  this  particular  case  to  do 
in  that  way,  because  other  things  were  done  that 
were  to  be  a  compensation  for  it.  They  were 
allowed  to  come  in  in  that  shape,  because  in  an 
other  way  it  was  paid  for — considering  that  as  a 
part  of  that  system  of  measures  called  the  com 
promise  of  1850,  which  finally  included  half  a 
dozen  acts.  It  included  the  admission  of  Cali 
fornia  as  a  free  State,  which  was  kept  out  of 
the  Union  for  half  a  year  because  it  had  formed 
a  free  constitution.  It  included  the  settlement 
of  the  boundary  of  Texas,  which  had  been  un 
defined  before,  which  was  in  itself  a  slavery 
question ;  for  if  you  pushed  the  line  further  west, 
you  made  Texas  larger,  and  made  more  slave 
Territory;  while  if  you  drew  the  line  toward  the 
east,  you  narrowed  the  boundary  and  dimin 
ished  the  domain  of  slavery,  and  by  so  much 
increased  free  Territory.  It  included  the  aboli 
tion  of  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Colum 
bia.  It  included  the  passage  of  a  new  fugitive- 
slave  law.  All  these  things  were  put  together, 
and  though  passed  in  separate  acts,  were  never 
theless  in  legislation  (as  the  speeches  at  the  time 
will  show)  made  to  depend  upon  each  other. 
Each  got  votes,  with  the  understanding  that  the 
other  measures  were  to  pass,  and  by  this  system 


1858]  Reply  at  Galesburg  273 

of  compromise,  in  that  series  of  measures,  those 
two  bills — the  New  Mexico  and  Utah  bills — 
were  passed ;  and  I  say  for  that  reason  they  could 
not  be  taken  as  models,  framed  upon  their  own 
intrinsic  principle,  for  all  future  Territories. 
And  I  have  the  evidence  of  this  in  the  fact  that 
Judge  Douglas,  a  year  afterward,  or  more  than 
a  year  afterward  perhaps,  when  he  first  intro 
duced  bills  for  the  purpose  of  framing  new  Ter 
ritories,  did  not  attempt  to  follow  these  bills  of 
New  Mexico  and  Utah;  and  even  when  he  in 
troduced  this  Nebraska  bill,  I  think  you  will 
discover  that  he  did  not  exactly  follow  them. 
But  I  do  not  wish  to  dwell  at  great  length  upon 
this  branch  of  the  discussion.  My  own  opin 
ion  is  that  a  thorough  investigation  will  show 
most  plainly  that  the  New  Mexico  and  Utah 
bills  were  part  of  a  system  of  compromise,  and 
not  designed  as  patterns  for  future  territorial 
legislation,  and  that  this  Nebraska  bill  did  not 
follow  them  as  a  pattern  at  all. 

The  judge  tells  us,  in  proceeding,  that  he  is 
opposed  to  making  any  odious  distinctions  be 
tween  free  and  slave  States.  I  am  altogether 
unaware  that  the  Republicans  are  in  favor  of 
making  any  odious  distinctions  between  the  free 
and  slave  States.  But  there  still  is  a  difference, 
I  think,  between  Judge  Douglas  and  the  Re 
publicans  in  this.  I  suppose  that  the  real  dif- 


274  Abraham   Lincoln          [Oct.  7 

ference  between  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends 
and  the  Republicans,  on  the  contrary,  is  that  the 
judge  is  not  in  favor  of  making  any  difference 
between  slavery  and  liberty — that  he  is  in  favor 
of  eradicating,  of  pressing  out  of  view,  the  ques 
tions  of  preference  in  this  country  for  free  or 
slave  institutions;  and  consequently  every  senti 
ment  he  utters  discards  the  idea  that  there  is 
any  wrong  in  slavery.  Everything  that  ema 
nates  from  him  or  his  coadjutors  in  their  course 
of  policy  carefully  excludes  the  thought  that 
there  is  anything  wrong  in  slavery.  All  their 
arguments,  if  you  will  consider  them,  will  be 
seen  to  exclude  the  thought  that  there  is  any 
thing  whatever  wrong  in  slavery.  If  you  will 
take  the  judge's  speeches,  and  select  the  short 
and  pointed  sentences  expressed  by  him, — as  his 
declaration  that  he  "don't  care  whether  slavery 
is  voted  up  or  down," — you  will  see  at  once  that 
this  is  perfectly  logical,  if  you  do  not  admit 
that  slavery  is  wrong.  If  you  do  admit  that  it 
is  wrong,  Judge  Douglas  cannot  logically  say 
he  don't  care  whether  a  wrong  is  voted  up  or 
voted  down.  Judge  Douglas  declares  that  if 
any  community  wants  slavery  they  have  a  right 
to  have  it.  He  can  say  that  logically,  if  he 
says  that  there  is  no  wrong  in  slavery;  but  if  you 
admit  that  there  is  a  wrong  in  it,  he  cannot  logi 
cally  say  that  anybody  has  a  right  to  do  wrong. 


1858]          Reply   at  Galesburg  275 

He  insists  that,  upon  the  score  of  equality,  the 
owners  of  slaves  and  owners  of  property — of 
horses  and  every  other  sort  of  property — should 
be  alike,  and  hold  them  alike  in  a  new  Territory. 
That  is  perfectly  logical,  if  the  two  species  of 
property  are  alike,  and  are  equally  founded  in 
right.  But  if  you  admit  that  one  of  them  is 
wrong,  you  cannot  institute  any  equality  be 
tween  right  and  wrong.  And  from  this  differ 
ence  of  sentiment — the  belief  on  the  part  of  one 
that  the  institution  is  wrong,  and  a  policy 
springing  from  that  belief  which  looks  to  the 
arrest  of  the  enlargement  of  that  wrong;  and 
this  other  sentiment,  that  it  is  no  wrong,  and  a 
policy  sprung  from  that  sentiment  which  will 
tolerate  no  idea  of  preventing  that  wrong  from 
growing  larger,  and  looks  to  there  never  being 
an  end  of  it  through  all  the  existence  of  things 
— arises  the  real  difference  between  Judge 
Douglas  and  his  friends  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  Republicans  on  the  other.  Now,  I  confess 
myself  as  belonging  to  that  class  in  the  country 
who  contemplate  slavery  as  a  moral,  social,  and 
political  evil,  having  due  regard  for  its  actual 
existence  amongst  us,  and  the  difficulties  of  get 
ting  rid  of  it  in  any  satisfactory  way,  and  to  all 
the  constitutional  obligations  which  have  been 
thrown  about  it;  but  who,  nevertheless,  desire 
a  policy  that  looks  to  the  prevention  of  it  as  a 


276  Abraham  Lincoln          [Oct.  7 

wrong,  and  looks  hopefully  to  the  time  when  as 
a  wrong  it  may  come  to  an  end. 

Judge  Douglas  has  again,  for,  I  believe,  the 
fifth  time,  if  not  the  seventh,  in  my  presence, 
reiterated  his  charge  of  a  conspiracy  or  combi 
nation  between  the  National  Democrats  and  Re 
publicans.  What  evidence  Judge  Douglas  has 
upon  this  subject  I  know  not,  inasmuch  as  he 
never  favors  us  with  any.  I  have  said  upon  a 
former  occasion,  and  I  do  not  choose  to  suppress 
it  now,  that  I  have  no  objection  to  the  division 
in  the  judge's  party.  He  got  it  up  himself.  It 
was  all  his  and  their  work.  He  had,  I  think,  a 
great  deal  more  to  do  with  the  steps  that  led  to 
the  Lecompton  constitution  than  Mr.  Buchanan 
had;  though  at  last,  when  they  reached  it,  they 
quarreled  over  it,  and  their  friends  divided  upon 
it.'  I  am  very  free  to  confess  to  Judge  Douglas 
that  I  have  no  objection  to  the  division;  but  I 
defy  the  judge  to  show  any  evidence  that  I  have 
in  any  way  promoted  that  division,  unless  he 
insists  on  being  a  witness  himself  in  merely  say 
ing  so.  I  can  give  all  fair  friends  of  Judge 
Douglas  here  to  understand  exactly  the  view 
that  Republicans  take  in  regard  to  that  division. 
Don't  you  remember  how  two  years  ago  the 
opponents  of  the  Democratic  party  divided  be 
tween  Fremont  and  Fillmore?  I  guess  you  do. 
Any  Democrat  who  remembers  that  division 


1858]  Reply  at  Galesburg  277 

will  remember  also  that  he  was  at  the  time  very 
glad  of  it,  and  then  he  will  be  able  to  see  all 
there  is  between  the  National  Democrats  and 
the  Republicans.  What  we  now  think  of  the 
two  divisions  of  Democrats,  you  then  thought 
of  the  Fremont  and  Fillmore  divisions.  That 
is  all  there  is  of  it. 

But  if  the  judge  continues  to  put  forward  the 
declaration  that  there  is  an  unholy,  unnatural 
alliance  between  the  Republicans  and  the  Na 
tional  Democrats,  I  now  want  to  enter  my  pro 
test  against  receiving  him  as  an  entirely  com 
petent  witness  upon  that  subject.  I  want  to  call 
to  the  judge's  attention  an  attack  he  made  upon 
me  in  the  first  one  of  these  debates,  at  Ottawa, 
on  the  2ist  of  August.  In  order  to  fix  extreme 
Abolitionism  upon  me,  Judge  Douglas  read  a 
set  of  resolutions  which  he  declared  had  been 
passed  by  a  Republican  State  convention,  in  Oc 
tober,  1854,  at  Springfield,  Illinois,  and  he  de 
clared  I  had  taken  part  in  that  convention.  It 
turned  out  that  although  a  few  men  calling 
themselves  an  anti-Nebraska  State  convention 
had  sat  at  Springfield  about  that  time,  yet 
neither  did  I  take  any  part  in  it,  nor  did  it  pass 
the  resolutions  or  any  such  resolutions  as  Judge 
Douglas  read.  So  apparent  had  it  become  that 
the  resolutions  which  he  read  had  not  been 
passed  at  Springfield  at  all,  nor  by  any  State 


278  Abraham  Lincoln          [Oct.  7 

convention  in  which  I  had  taken  part,  that  seven 
days  afterward,  at  Freeport,  Judge  Douglas  de 
clared  that  he  had  been  misled  by  Charles  H. 
Lanphier,  editor  of  the  "State  Register,"  and 
Thomas  L.  Harris,  member  of  Congress  in  that 
district,  and  he  promised  in  that  speech  that 
when  he  went  to  Springfield  he  would  investi 
gate  the  matter.  Since  then  Judge  Douglas  has 
been  to  Springfield,  and  I  presume  has  made 
the  investigation ;  but  a  month  has  passed  since 
he  has  been  there,  and  so  far  as  I  know,  he  has 
made  no  report  of  the  result  of  his  investigation. 
I  have  waited  as  I  think  a  sufficient  time  for  the 
report  of  that  investigation,  and  I  have  some 
curiosity  to  see  and  hear  it.  A  fraud,  an  abso 
lute  forgery,  was  committed,  and  the  perpetra 
tion  of  it  was  traced  to  the  three — Lanphier, 
Harris,  and  Douglas.  Whether  it  can  be  nar 
rowed  in  any  way,  so  as  to  exonerate  any  one  of 
them,  is  what  Judge  Douglas's  report  would 
probably  show. 

It  is  true  that  the  set  of  resolutions  read  by 
Judge  Douglas  were  published  in  the  Illinois 
"State  Register"  on  the  i6th  of  October,  1854, 
as  being  the  resolutions  of  an  anti-Nebraska  con 
vention  which  had  sat  in  that  same  month  of 
October,  at  Springfield.  But  it  is  also  true  that 
the  publication  in  the  "Register"  was  a  forgery 
then,  and  the  question  is  still  behind,  which  of 


1858]  Reply  at   Galesburg  279 

the  three,  if  not  all  of  them,  committed  that  for 
gery?  The  idea  that  it  was  done  by  mistake  is 
absurd.  The  article  in  the  Illinois  "State  Reg 
ister"  contains  part  of  the  real  proceedings  of 
that  Springfield  convention,  showing  that  the 
writer  of  the  article  had  the  real  proceedings 
before  him,  and  purposely  threw  out  the  gen 
uine  resolutions  passed  by  the  convention,  and 
fraudulently  substituted  the  others.  Lanphier 
then,  as  now,  was  the  editor  of  the  "Register," 
so  that  there  seems  to  be  but  little  room  for  his 
escape.  But  then  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that 
Lanphier  had  less  interest  in  the  object  of  that 
forgery  than  either  of  the  other  two.  The  main 
object  of  that  forgery  at  that  time  was  to  beat 
Yates  and  elect  Harris  to  Congress,  and  that 
object  was  known  to  be  exceedingly  dear  to 
Judge  Douglas  at  that  time.  Harris  and  Doug 
las  were  both  in  Springfield  when  the  conven 
tion  was  in  session,  and  although  they  both  left 
before  the  fraud  appeared  in  the  "Register," 
subsequent  events  show  that  they  have  both  had 
their  eyes  fixed  upon  that  convention. 

The  fraud  having  been  apparently  successful 
upon  that  occasion,  both  Harris  and  Douglas 
have  more  than  once  since  then  been  attempting 
to  put  it  to  new  uses.  As  the  fisherman's  wife, 
whose  drowned  husband  was  brought  home  with 
his  body  full  of  eels,  said  when  she  was  asked 


280  Abraham   Lincoln  [Oct.  7 

what  was  to  be  done  with  him,  "Take  the  eels 
out  and  set  him  again,"  so  Harris  and  Douglas 
have  shown  a  disposition  to  take  the  eels  out 
of  that  stale  fraud  by  which  they  gained  Harris's 
election,  and  set  the  fraud  again  more  than 
once.  On  the  9th  of  July,  1856,  Douglas  at 
tempted  a  repetition  of  it  upon  Trumbull  on  the 
floor  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  as  will 
appear  from  the  appendix  to  the  "Congressional 
Globe"  of  that  date.  On  the  9th  of  August, 
Harris  attempted  it  again  upon  Norton  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  as  will  appear  by  the 
same  document — the  appendix  to  the  "Con 
gressional  Globe"  of  that  date.  On  the  2ist  of 
August  last,  all  three — Lanphier,  Douglas,  and 
Harris — reattempted  it  upon  me  at  Ottawa.  It 
has  been  clung  to  and  played  out  again  and 
again  as  an  exceedingly  high  trump  by  this 
blessed  trio.  And  now  that  it  has  been  discov 
ered  publicly  to  be  a  fraud,  we  find  that  Judge 
Douglas  manifests  no  surprise  at  it  at  all.  He 
makes  no  complaint  of  Lanphier,  who  must  have 
known  it  to  be  a  fraud  from  the  beginning.  He, 
Lanphier,  and  Harris  are  just  as  cozy  now,  and 
just  as  active  in  the  concoction  of  new  schemes 
as  they  were  before  the  general  discovery  of 
this  fraud.  Now  all  this  is  very  natural  if  they 
are  all  alike  guilty  in  that  fraud,  and  it  is  very 
unnatural  if  any  one  of  them  is  innocent.  Lan- 


1858]  Reply  at  Galesburg  281 

phier  perhaps  insists  that  the  rule  of  honor 
among  thieves  does  not  quite  require  him  to  take 
all  upon  himself,  and  consequently  my  friend 
Judge  Douglas  finds  it  difficult  to  make  a  satis 
factory  report  upon  his  investigation.  But 
meanwhile  the  three  are  agreed  that  each  is  "a 
most  honorable  man." 

Judge  Douglas  requires  an  indorsement  of  his 
truth  and  honor  by  a  reelection  to  the  United 
States  Senate,  and  he  makes  and  reports  against 
me  and  against  Judge  Trumbull,  day  after  day, 
charges  which  we  know  to  be  utterly  untrue, 
without  for  a  moment  seeming  to  think  that  this 
one  unexplained  fraud,  which  he  promised  to 
investigate,  will  be  the  least  drawback  to  his 
claim  to  belief.  Harris  ditto.  He  asks  a  re 
election  to  the  lower  House  of  Congress  without 
seeming  to  remember  at  all  that  he  is  involved 
in  this  dishonorable  fraud!  The  Illinois  "State 
Register,"  edited  by  Lanphier,  then,  as  now,  the 
central  organ  of  both  Harris  and  Douglas,  con 
tinues  to  din  the  public  ear  with  these  assertions 
without  seeming  to  suspect  that  they  are  at  all 
lacking  in  title  to  belief. 

After  all,  the  question  still  recurs  upon  us, 
how  did  that  fraud  originally  get  into  the  "State 
Register"?  Lanphier  then,  as  now,  was  the 
editor  of  that  paper.  Lanphier  knows.  Lan 
phier  cannot  be  ignorant  of  how  and  by  whom  it 


282  Abraham   Lincoln  [Oct.  7 

was  originally  concocted.  Can  he  be  induced 
to  tell,  or  if  he  has  told,  can  Judge  Douglas  be 
induced  to  tell,  how  it  originally  was  concocted? 
It  may  be  true  that  Lanphier  insists  that  the 
two  men  for  whose  benefit  it  was  originally  de 
vised  shall  at  least  bear  their  share  of  it!  How 
that  is,  I  do  not  know,  and  while  it  remains  un 
explained,  I  hope  to  be  pardoned  if  I  insist  that 
the  mere  fact  of  Judge  Douglas  making  charges 
against  Trumbull  and  myself  is  not  quite  suffi 
cient  evidence  to  establish  them ! 

While  we  were  at  Freeport,  in  one  of  these 
joint  discussions,  I  answered  certain  interroga 
tories  which  Judge  Douglas  had  propounded  to 
me,  and  there  in  turn  propounded  some  to  him, 
which  he  in  a  sort  of  way  answered.  The  third 
one  of  these  interrogatories  I  have  with  me,  and 
wish  now  to  make  some  comments  upon  it.  It 
was  in  these  words:  "If  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  shall  decide  that  States  cannot 
exclude  slavery  from  their  limits,  are  you  in 
favor  of  acquiescing  in,  adopting,  and  following 
such  decision  as  a  rule  of  political  action?" 

To  this  interrogatory  Judge  Douglas  made  no 
answer  in  any  just  sense  of  the  word.  He  con 
tented  himself  with  sneering  at  the  thought  that 
it  was  possible  for  the  Supreme  Court  ever  to 
make  such  a  decision.  He  sneered  at  me  for 
propounding  the  interrogatory.  I  had  not  pro- 


1858]          Reply   at  Galesburg  283 

pounded  it  without  some  reflection,  and  I  wish 
now  to  address  to  this  audience  some  remarks 
upon  it. 

In  the  second  clause  of  the  sixth  article,  I  be 
lieve  it  is,  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  we  find  the  following  language:  "This 
Constitution  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States 
which  shall  be  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  and 
all  treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under 
the  authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land;  and  the  judges  in 
every  State  shall  be  bound  thereby,  anything  in 
the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  to  the  con 
trary  notwithstanding." 

The  essence  of  the  Dred  Scott  case  is  com 
pressed  into  the  sentence  which  I  will  now  read: 
"Now,  as  we  have  already  said  in  an  earlier  part 
of  this  opinion,  upon  a  different  point,  the  right 
of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly 
affirmed  in  the  Constitution."  I  repeat  it,  "the 
right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  ex 
pressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution"!  What  is 
to  be  "affirmed"  in  the  Constitution?  Made 
firm  in  the  Constitution — so  made  that  it  can 
not  be  separated  from  the  Constitution  without 
breaking  the  Constitution — durable  as  the  Con 
stitution,  and  part  of  the  Constitution?  Now, 
remembering  the  provision  of  the  Constitution 
which  I  have  read,  affirming  that  that  instru- 


284  Abraham  Lincoln          [Oct.  7 

ment  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land;  that  the 
judges  of  every  State  shall  be  bound  by  it,  any 
law  or  constitution  of  any  State  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding;  that  the  right  of  property  in  a 
slave  is  affirmed  in  that  Constitution,  is  made, 
formed  into,  and  cannot  be  separated  from  it 
without  breaking  it;  durable  as  the  instrument, 
part  of  the  instrument, — what  follows  as  a  short 
and  even  syllogistic  argument  from  it?  I  think 
it  follows,  and  I  submit  to  the  consideration  of 
men  capable  of  arguing,  whether  as  I  state  it, 
in  syllogistic  form,  the  argument  has  any  fault 
in  it? 

Nothing  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any 
State  can  destroy  a  right  distinctly  and  expressly 
affirmed  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

The  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly 
and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

Therefore,  nothing  in  the  constitution  or  laws 
of  any  State  can  destroy  the  right  of  property  in 
a  slave. 

I  believe  that  no  fault  can  be  pointed  out  in 
that  argument;  assuming  the  truth  of  the  prem 
ises,  the  conclusion,  so  far  as  I  have  capacity 
at  all  to  understand  it,  follows  inevitably. 
There  is  a  fault  in  it,  as  I  think,  but  the  fault  is 
not  in  the  reasoning;  the  falsehood,  in  fact,  is 
a  fault  in  the  premises.  I  believe  that  the  right 


1858]  Reply  at  Galesburg  285 

of  property  in  a  slave  is  not  distinctly  and  ex 
pressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution,  and  Judge 
Douglas  thinks  it  is.  I  believe  that  the  Su 
preme  Court  and  the  advocates  of  that  decision 
may  search  in  vain  for  the  place  in  the  Consti 
tution  where  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is 
distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed.  I  say,  there 
fore,  that  I  think  one  of  the  premises  is  not 
true  in  fact.  But  it  is  true  with  Judge  Douglas. 
It  is  true  with  the  Supreme  Court  who  pro 
nounced  it.  They  are  estopped  from  denying 
it,  and  being  estopped  from  denying  it,  the  con 
clusion  follows  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  being  the  supreme  law,  no  con 
stitution  or  law  can  interfere  with  it.  It  being 
affirmed  in  the  decision  that  the  right  of  prop 
erty  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed 
in  the  Constitution,  the  conclusion  inevitably 
follows  that  no  State  law  or  constitution  can  de 
stroy  that  right.  I  then  say  to  Judge  Douglas, 
and  to  all  others,  that  I  think  it  will  take  a 
better  answer  than  a  sneer  to  show  that  those 
who  have  said  that  the  right  of  property  in  a 
slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the 
Constitution  are  not  prepared  to  show  that  no 
constitution  or  law  can  destroy  that  right.  I 
say  I  believe  it  will  take  a  far  better  argument 
than  a  mere  sneer  to  show  to  the  minds  of  intelli 
gent  men  that  whoever  has  so  said  is  not  pre- 


a86  Abraham   Lincoln  [Oct.  7 

pared,  whenever  public  sentiment  is  so  far  ad 
vanced  as  to  justify  it,  to  say  the  other. 

This  is  but  an  opinion,  and  the  opinion  of 
one  very  humble  man ;  but  it  is  my  opinion  that 
the  Dred  Scott  decision,  as  it  is,  never  would 
have  been  made  in  its  present  form  if  the  party 
that  made  it  had  not  been  sustained  previously 
by  the  elections.  My  own  opinion  is  that  the 
new  Dred  Scott  decision,  deciding  against  the 
right  of  the  people  of  the  States  to  exclude  slav 
ery,  will  never  be  made  if  that  party  is  not  sus 
tained  by  the  elections.  I  believe,  further,  that 
it  is  just  as  sure  to  be  made  as  to-morrow  is  to 
come,  if  that  party  shall  be  sustained.  I  have 
said  upon  a  former  occasion,  and  I  repeat  it 
now,  that  the  course  of  argument  that  Judge 
Douglas  makes  use  of  upon  this  subject  (I 
charge  not  his  motives  in  this)  is  preparing  the 
public  mind  for  that  new  Dred  Scott  decision. 
I  have  asked  him  again  to  point  out  to  me  the 
reasons  for  his  first  adherence  to  the  Dred 
Scott  decision  as  it  is.  I  have  turned  his  atten 
tion  to  the  fact  that  General  Jackson  differed 
with  him  in  regard  to  the  political  obligation  of 
a  Supreme  Court  decision.  Jefferson  said  that 
"judges  are  as  honest  as  other  men,  and  not  more 
so."  And  he  said,  substantially,  that  whenever 
a  free  people  should  give  up  in  absolute  sub 
mission  to  any  department  of  government,  re- 


1858]  Reply  at  Galesburg  287 

taining  for  themselves  no  appeal  from  it,  their 
liberties  were  gone.  I  have  asked  his  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  Cincinnati  platform,  upon 
which  he  says  he  stands,  disregards  a  time-hon 
ored  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  in  defying 
the  power  of  Congress  to  establish  a  national 
bank.  I  have  asked  his  attention  to  the  fact 
that  he  himself  was  one  of  the  most  active  instru 
ments  at  one  time  in  breaking  down  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  because  it 
had  made  a  decision  distasteful  to  him — a  strug 
gle  ending  in  the  remarkable  circumstance  of 
his  sitting  down  as  one  of  the  new  judges  who 
were  to  overslaugh  that  decision,  getting  his 
title  of  judge  in  that  very  way. 

So  far  in  this  controversy  I  can  get  no  answer 
at  all  from  Judge  Douglas  upon  these  subjects. 
Not  one  can  I  get  from  him,  except  that  he 
swells  himself  up  and  says:  "All  of  us  who 
stand  by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  are 
the  friends  of  the  Constitution;  all  you  fellows 
that  dare  question  it  in  any  way  are  the  enemies 
of  the  Constitution."  Now  in  this  very  devoted 
adherence  to  this  decision,  in  opposition  to  all 
the  great  political  leaders  whom  he  has  recog 
nized  as  leaders — in  opposition  to  his  former 
self  and  history,  there  is  something  very  marked. 
And  the  manner  in  which  he  adheres  to  it — not 
as  being  right  upon  the  merits,  as  he  conceives 


a88  Abraham  Lincoln          [Oct.  7 

(because  he  did  not  discuss  that  at  all),  but  as 
being  absolutely  obligatory  upon  every  one  sim 
ply  because  of  the  source  from  whence  it  comes 
— as  that  which  no  man  can  gainsay,  whatever 
it  may  be — this  is  another  marked  feature  of  his 
adherence  to  that  decision.  It  marks  it  in  this 
respect,  that  it  commits  him  to  the  next  decision, 
whenever  it  comes,  as  being  as  obligatory  as  this 
one,  since  he  does  not  investigate  it,  and  won't 
inquire  whether  this  opinion  is  right  or  wrong. 
So  he  takes  the  next  one  without  inquiring 
whether  it  is  right  or  wrong.  He  teaches  men 
this  doctrine,  and  in  so  doing  prepares  the  pub 
lic  mind  to  take  the  next  decision  when  it  comes 
without  any  inquiry.  In  this  I  think  I  argue 
fairly  (without  questioning  motives  at  all)  that 
Judge  Douglas  is  most  ingeniously  and  power 
fully  preparing  the  public  mind  to  take  that  de 
cision  when  it  comes ;  and  not  only  so,  but  he  is 
doing  it  in  various  other  ways.  In  these  gen 
eral  maxims  about  liberty — in  his  assertions  that 
he  "don't  care  whether  slavery  is  voted  up  or 
voted  down";  that  "whoever  wants  slavery  has 
a  right  to  have  it";  that  "upon  principles  of 
equality  it  should  be  allowed  to  go  everywhere" ; 
that  "there  is  no  inconsistency  between  free  and 
slave  institutions" — in  this  he  is  also  preparing 
(whether  purposely  or  not)  the  way  for  making 
the  institution  of  slavery  national.  I  repeat 


1858]  Reply  at  Galesburg  289 

again,  for  I  wish  no  misunderstanding,  that  I  do 
not  charge  that  he  means  it  so ;  but  I  call  upon 
your  minds  to  inquire,  if  you  were  going  to  get 
the  best  instrument  you  could,  and  then  set  it  to 
work  in  the  most  ingenious  way,  to  prepare  the 
public  mind  for  this  movement,  operating  in  the 
free  States,  where  there  is  now  an  abhorrence 
of  the  institution  of  slavery,  could  you  find  an 
instrument  so  capable  of  doing  it  as  Judge 
Douglas,  or  one  employed  in  so  apt  a  way  to 
do  it? 

I  have  said  once  before,  and  I  will  repeat  it 
now,  that  Mr.  Clay,  when  he  was  once  answer 
ing  an  objection  to  the  Colonization  Society, 
that  it  had  a  tendency  to  the  ultimate  emanci 
pation  of  the  slaves,  said  that  "those  who  would 
repress  all  tendencies  to  liberty  and  ultimate 
emancipation  must  do  more  than  put  down  the 
benevolent  efforts  of  the  Colonization  Society — 
they  must  go  back  to  the  era  of  our  liberty  and 
independence,  and  muzzle  the  cannon  that  thun 
ders  its  annual  joyous  return — they  must  blot 
out  the  moral  lights  around  us — they  must  pene 
trate  the  human  soul,  and  eradicate  the  light  of 
reason  and  the  love  of  liberty"!  And  I  do  think 
— I  repeat,  though  I  said  it  on  a  former  occasion 
—that  Judge  Douglas,  and  whoever,  like  him, 
teaches  that  the  negro  has  no  share,  humble 
though  it  may  be,  in  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 


290  Abraham   Lincoln          [Oct.  7 

pendence,  is  going  back  to  the  era  of  our  liberty 
and  independence,  and,  so  far  as  in  him  lies, 
muzzling  the  cannon  that  thunders  its  annual 
joyous  return;  that  he  is  blowing  out  the  moral 
lights  around  us,  when  he  contends  that  who 
ever  wants  slaves  has  a  right  to  hold  them;  that 
he  is  penetrating,  so  far  as  lies  in  his  power, 
the  human  soul,  and  eradicating  the  light  of 
reason  and  the  love  of  liberty,  when  he  is  in 
every  possible  way  preparing  the  public  mind, 
by  his  vast  influence,  for  making  the  institution 
of  slavery  perpetual  and  national. 

There  is,  my  friends,  only  one  other  point  to 
which  I  will  call  your  attention  for  the  remain 
ing  time  that  I  have  left  me,  and  perhaps  I  shall 
not  occupy  the  entire  time  that  I  have,  as  that 
one  point  may  not  take  me  clear  through  it. 

Among  the  interrogatories  that  Judge  Doug 
las  propounded  to  me  at  Freeport,  there  was 
one  in  about  this  language:  "Are  you  opposed 
to  the  acquisition  of  any  further  territory  to  the 
United  States,  unless  slavery  shall  first  be  pro 
hibited  therein?"  I  answered  as  I  thought,  in 
this  way,  that  I  am  not  generally  opposed  to  the 
acquisition  of  additional  territory,  and  that  I 
would  support  a  proposition  for  the  acquisition 
of  additional  territory,  according  as  my  support 
ing  it  was  or  was  not  calculated  to  aggravate 
this  slavery  question  amongst  us.  I  then  pro- 


1858]  Reply  at  Galesburg  291 

posed  to  Judge  Douglas  another  interrogatory, 
which  was  correlative  to  that:  "Are  you  in 
favor  of  acquiring  additional  territory  in  dis 
regard  of  how  it  may  affect  us  upon  the  slavery 
question?"  Judge  Douglas  answered — that  is, 
in  his  own  way  he  answered  it.  I  believe  that, 
although  he  took  a  good  many  words  to  answer 
it,  it  was  little  more  fully  answered  than  any 
other.  The  substance  of  his  answer  was  that 
this  country  would  continue  to  expand — that  it 
would  need  additional  territory — that  it  was  as 
absurd  to  suppose  that  we  could  continue  upon 
our  present  territory,  enlarging  in  population 
as  we  are,  as  it  would  be  to  hoop  a  boy  twelve 
years  of  age,  and  expect  him  to  grow  to  man's 
size  without  bursting  the  hoops.  I  believe  it 
was  something  like  that.  Consequently  he  was 
in  favor  of  the  acquisition  of  further  territory, 
as  fast  as  we  might  need  it,  in  disregard  of  how 
it  might  affect  the  slavery  question.  I  do  not 
say  this  as  giving  his  exact  language,  but  he  said 
so  substantially,  and  he  would  leave  the  question 
of  slavery  where  the  territory  was  acquired,  to 
be  settled  by  the  people  of  the  acquired  terri 
tory.  ["That's  the  doctrine."]  Maybe  it  is; 
let  us  consider  that  for  a  while.  This  will 
probably,  in  the  run  of  things,  become  one  of 
the  concrete  manifestations  of  this  slavery  ques 
tion.  If  Judge  Douglas's  policy  upon  this  ques- 


292  Abraham  Lincoln  [Oct.  7 

tion  succeeds  and  gets  fairly  settled  down  until 
all  opposition  is  crushed  out,  the  next  thing  will 
be  a  grab  for  the  territory  of  poor  Mexico,  an 
invasion  of  the  rich  lands  of  South  America, 
then  the  adjoining  islands  will  follow,  each  one 
of  which  promises  additional  slave-fields.  And 
this  question  is  to  be  left  to  the  people  of  those 
countries  for  settlement.  When  we  shall  get 
Mexico,  I  don't  know  whether  the  judge  will 
be  in  favor  of  the  Mexican  people  that  we  get 
with  it  settling  that  question  for  themselves  and 
all  others;  because  we  know  the  judge  has  a 
great  horror  for  mongrels,  and  I  understand 
that  the  people  of  Mexico  are  most  decidedly 
a  race  of  mongrels.  I  understand  that  there  is 
not  more  than  one  person  there  out  of  eight  who 
is  a  pure  white,  and  I  suppose  from  the  judge's 
previous  declaration  that  when  we  get  Mexico, 
or  any  considerable  portion  of  it,  he  will  be  in 
favor  of  these  mongrels  settling  the  question, 
which  would  bring  him- somewhat  into  collision 
with  his  horror  of  an  inferior  race. 

It  is  to  be  remembered,  though,  that  this 
power  of  acquiring  additional  territory  is  a 
power  confided  to  the  President  and  Senate  of 
the  United  States.  It  is  a  power  not  under  the 
control  of  the  representatives  of  the  people  any 
further  than  they,  the  President  and  the  Senate, 
can  be  considered  the  representatives  of  the  peo- 


1858]  Reply  at  Galesburg  293 

pie.  Let  me  illustrate  that  by  a  case  we  have 
in  our  history.  When  we  acquired  the  territory 
from  Mexico  in  the  Mexican  war,  the  House  of 
Representatives,  composed  of  the  immediate 
representatives  of  the  people,  all  the  time  in 
sisted  that  the  territory  thus  to  be  acquired 
should  be  brought  in  upon  condition  that  slav 
ery  should  be  forever  prohibited  therein,  upon 
the  terms  and  in  the  language  that  slavery  had 
been  prohibited  from  coming  into  this  country. 
That  was  insisted  upon  constantly,  and  never 
failed  to  call  forth  an  assurance  that  any  terri 
tory  thus  acquired  should  have  that  prohibition 
in  it,  so  far  as  the  House  of  Representatives  was 
concerned.  But  at  last  the  President  and  Sen 
ate  acquired  the  territory  without  asking  the 
House  of  Representatives  anything  about  it,  and 
took  it  without  that  prohibition.  They  have  the 
power  of  acquiring  territory  without  the  imme 
diate  representatives  of  the  people  being  called 
upon  to  say  anything  about  it,  thus  furnishing 
a  very  apt  and  powerful  means  of  bringing  new 
territory  into  the  Union,  and,  when  it  is  once 
brought  into  the  country,  involving  us  anew  in 
this  slavery  agitation.  It  is  therefore,  as  I 
think,  a  very  important  question  for  the  consid 
eration  of  the  American  people,  whether  the 
policy  of  bringing  in  additional  territory,  with 
out  considering  at  all  how  it  will  operate  upon 


294  Abraham   Lincoln  [Oct.  7 

the  safety  of  the  Union  in  reference  to  this  one 
great  disturbing  element  in  our  national  poli 
tics,  shall  be  adopted  as  the  policy  of  the  coun 
try.  You  will  bear  in  mind  that  it  is  to  be  ac 
quired,  according  to  the  judge's  view,  as  fast 
as  it  is  needed,  and  the  indefinite  part  of  this 
proposition  is  that  we  have  only  Judge  Doug 
las  and  his  class  of  men  to  decide  how  fast  it 
is  needed.  We  have  no  clear  and  certain  way 
of  determining  or  demonstrating  how  fast  ter 
ritory  is  needed  by  the  necessities  of  the  coun 
try.  Whoever  wants  to  go  out  filibustering, 
then,  thinks  that  more  territory  is  needed. 
Whoever  wants  wider  slave-fields  feels  sure  that 
some  additional  territory  is  needed  as  slave  ter 
ritory.  Then  it  is  as  easy  to  show  the  necessity 
of  additional  slave  territory  as  it  is  to  assert  any 
thing  that  is  incapable  of  absolute  demonstra 
tion.  Whatever  motive  a  man  or  a  set  of  men 
may  have  for  making  annexation  of  property  or 
territory,  it  is  very  easy  to  assert,  but  much  less 
easy  to  disprove,  that  it  is  necessary  for  the  wants 
of  the  country. 

And  now  it  only  remains  for  me  to  say  that  I 
think  it  is  a  very  grave  question  for  the  people 
of  this  Union  to  consider  whether,  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  this  slavery  question  has  been  the 
only  one  that  has  ever  endangered  our  republi 
can  institutions — the  only  one  that  has  ever 


1858]          Reply   at   Galesburg  295 

threatened  or  menaced  a  dissolution  of  the 
Union — that  has  ever  disturbed  us  in  such  a  way 
as  to  make  us  fear  for  the  perpetuity  of  our  lib 
erty — in  view  of  these  facts,  I  think  it  is  an  ex 
ceedingly  interesting  and  important  question  for 
this  people  to  consider  whether  we  shall  engage 
in  the  policy  of  acquiring  additional  territory, 
discarding  altogether  from  our  consideration, 
while  obtaining  new  territory,  the  question  how 
it  may  affect  us  in  regard  to  this  the  only  en 
dangering  element  to  our  liberties  and  national 
greatness.  The  judge's  view  has  been  ex 
pressed.  I,  in  my  answer  to  his  question,  have 
expressed  mine.  I  think  it  will  become  an  im 
portant  and  practical  question.  Our  views  are 
before  the  public.  I  am  willing  and  anxious 
that  they  should  consider  them  fully — that  they 
should  turn  it  about  and  consider  the  importance 
of  the  question,  and  arrive  at  a  just  conclusion 
as  to  whether  it  is  or  is  not  wise  in  the  people  of 
this  Union,  in  the  acquisition  of  new  territory, 
to  consider  whether  it  will  add  to  the  dis 
turbance  that  is  existing  among  us — whether  it 
will  add  to  the  one  only  danger  that  has  ever 
threatened  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union  or  our 
own  liberties.  I  think  it  is  extremely  impor 
tant  that  they  shall  decide,  and  rightly  decide, 
that  question  before  entering  upon  that  policy. 
And  now,  my  friends,  having  said  the  little 


296  Abraham   Lincoln          [Oct.  7 

I  wish  to  say  upon  this  head,  whether  I  have 
occupied  the  whole  of  the  remnant  of  my  time 
or  not,  I  believe  I  could  not  enter  upon  any  new 
topic  so  as  to  treat  it  fully  without  transcending 
my  time,  which  I  would  not  for  a  moment  think 
of  doing.  I  give  way  to  Judge  Douglas. 


1858]       Rejoinder  at  Galesburg         297 


Mr.  Douglas's  Rejoinder  in  the  Galesburg  Joint 
Debate. 

GENTLEMEN:     The   highest   compli 
ment  you  can  pay  me  during  the  brief 
half-hour  I  have  to  conclude  is  by  ob 
serving  a  strict  silence.     I  desire  to  be  heard 
rather  than  to  be  applauded. 

The  first  criticism  that  Mr.  Lincoln  makes  on 
my  speech  was  that  it  was  in  substance  what  I 
have  said  everywhere  else  in  the  State  where 
I  have  addressed  the  people.  I  wish  I  could 
say  the  same  of  his  speech.  Why,  the  reason 
I  complain  of  him  is  because  he  makes  one 
speech  north  and  another  south.  Because  he 
has  one  set  of  sentiments  for  the  Abolition  coun 
ties,  and  another  set  for  the  counties  opposed  to 
Abolitionism.  My  point  of  complaint  against 
him  is  that  I  cannot  induce  him  to  hold  up  the 
same  standard,  to  carry  the  same  flag  in  all  parts 
of  the  State.  He  does  not  pretend,  and  no  other 
man  will,  that  I  have  one  set  of  principles  for 
Galesburg  and  another  for  Charleston.  He 
does  not  pretend  that  I  hold  to  one  doctrine  in 
Chicago  and  an  opposite  one  in  Jonesboro.  I 
have  proved  that  he  has  a  different  set  of  prin- 


298  Stephen  A.   Douglas        [Oct.  7 

ciples  for  each  of  these  localities.  All  I  asked 
of  him  was  that  he  should  deliver  the  speech 
that  he  has  made  here  to-day  in  Coles  County 
instead  of  in  old  Knox.  It  would  have  settled 
the  question  between  us  in  that  doubtful  county. 
Here  I  understand  him  to  reaffirm  the  doctrine 
of  negro  equality,  and  to  assert  that  by  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  the  negro  is  de 
clared  equal  to  the  white  man.  He  tells  you 
to-day  that  the  negro  was  included  in  the  De 
claration  of  Independence  when  it  asserted  that 
all  men  were  created  equal.  ["We  believe  it."] 
Very  well. 

Mr.  Lincoln  asserts  to-day,  as  he  did  at  Chi 
cago,  that  the  negro  was  included  in  that  clause 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  which  says 
that  all  men  were  created  equal,  and  endowed 
by  the  Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights, 
among  which  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit 
of  happiness.  If  the  negro  was  made  his  equal 
and  mine,  if  that  equality  was  established  by 
divine  law,  and  was  the  negro's  inalienable 
right,  how  came  he  to  say  at  Charleston  to  the 
Kentuckians  residing  in  that  section  of  our 
State,  that  the  negro  was  physically  inferior  to 
the  white  man,  belonging  to  an  inferior  race, 
and  he  was  for  keeping  him  always  in  that  in 
ferior  condition.  I  wish  you  to  bear  these 
things  in  mind.  At  Charleston  he  said  that  the 


1858]       Rejoinder  at  Galesburg         299 

negro  belonged  to  an  inferior  race,  and  that  he 
was  for  keeping  him  in  that  inferior  condition. 
There  he  gave  the  people  to  understand  that 
there  was  no  moral  question  involved,  because 
the  inferiority  being  established,  it  was  only  a 
question  of  degree  and  not  a  question  of  right; 
here,  to-day,  instead  of  making  it  a  question  of 
degree,  he  makes  it  a  moral  question,  says  that 
it  is  a  great  crime  to  hold  the  negro  in  that  in 
ferior  condition.  ["He  's  right."]  Is  he  right 
now,  or  was  he  right  in  Charleston?  ["Both."] 
He  is  right  then,  sir,  in  your  estimation,  not  be 
cause  he  is  consistent,  but  because  he  can  trim 
his  principles  any  way  in  any  section,  so  as  to 
secure  votes.  All  I  desire  of  him  is  that  he  will 
declare  the  same  principles  in  the  south  that  he 
does  in  the  north 

But  did  you  notice  how  he  answered  my  posi 
tion  that  a  man  should  hold  the  same  doctrines 
throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  this  re 
public?  He  said,  "Would  Judge  Douglas  go 
to  Russia  and  proclaim  the  same  principles  he 
does  here?"  I  would  remind  him  that  Russia 
is  not  under  the  American  Constitution.  If 
Russia  was  a  part  of  the  American  republic, 
under  our  Federal  Constitution,  and  I  was  sworn 
to  support  the  Constitution,  I  would  maintain 
the  same  doctrine  in  Russia  that  I  do  in  Illinois. 
The  slaveholding  States  are  governed  by  the 


300  Stephen   A.   Douglas        [Oct.  7 

same  Federal  Constitution  as  ourselves,  and 
hence  a  man's  principles,  in  order  to  be  in  har 
mony  with  the  Constitution,  must  be  the  same 
in  the  South  as  they  are  in  the  North,  the  same 
in  the  free  States  as  they  are  in  the  slave  States. 
Whenever  a  man  advocates  one  set  of  principles 
in  one  section,  and  another  set  in  another  section, 
his  opinions  are  in  violation  of  the  spirit  of  the 
Constitution  which  he  has  sworn  to  support. 
When  Mr.  Lincoln  went  to  Congress  in  1847, 
and,  laying  his  hand  upon  the  Holy  Evangel 
ists,  made  a  solemn  vow  in  the  presence  of  high 
Heaven  that  he  would  be  faithful  to  the  Consti 
tution — what  did  he  mean?  the  Constitution  as 
he  expounds  it  in  Galesburg,  or  the  Constitu 
tion  as  he  expounds  it  in  Charleston? 

Mr.  Lincoln  has  devoted  considerable  time 
to  the  circumstance  that  at  Ottawa  I  read  a 
series  of  resolutions  as  having  been  adopted  at 
Springfield,  in  this  State,  on  the  4th  or  ^th  of 
October,  1854,  which  happened  not  to  have  been 
adopted  there.  He  has  used  hard  names;  has 
dared  to  talk  about  fraud,  about  forgery,  and 
has  insinuated  that  there  was  a  conspiracy  be 
tween  Mr.  Lanphier,  Mr.  Harris,  and  myself 
to  perpetrate  a  forgery.  Now,  bear  in  mind 
that  he  does  not  deny  that  these  resolutions  were 
adopted  in  a  majority  of  all  the  Republican 
counties  of  this  State  in  that  year;  he  does  not 


1858]        Rejoinder  at  Galesburg         301 

deny  that  they  were  declared  to  be  the  platform 
of  this  Republican  party  in  the  first  congres 
sional  district,  in  the  second,  in  the  third,  and 
in  many  counties  of  the  fourth,  and  that  they 
thus  became  the  platform  of  his  party  in  a  ma 
jority  of  the  counties  upon  which  he  now  relies 
for  support;  he  does  not  deny  the  truthfulness  of 
the  resolutions,  but  takes  exception  to  the  spot 
on  which  they  were  adopted.  He  takes  to  him 
self  great  merit  because  he  thinks  they  were  not 
adopted  on  the  right  spot  for  me  to  use  them 
against  him,  just  as  he  was  very  severe  in  Con 
gress  upon  the  government  of  his  country,  when 
he  thought  that  he  had  discovered  that  the  Mex 
ican  war  was  not  begun  in  the  right  spot,  and 
was  therefore  unjust.  He  tries  very  hard  to 
make  out  that  there  is  something  very  extra 
ordinary  in  the  place  where  the  thing  was  done, 
and  not  in  the  thing  itself.  I  never  believed 
before  that  Abraham  Lincoln  would  be  guilty 
of  what  he  has  done  this  day  in  regard  to  those 
resolutions.  In  the  first  place,  the  moment  it 
was  intimated  to  me  that  they  had  been  adopted 
at  Aurora  and  Rockford  instead  of  Springfield, 
I  did  not  wait  for  him  to  call  my  attention  to 
the  fact,  but  led  off  and  explained  in  my  first 
meeting  after  the  Ottawa  debate,  what  the  mis 
take  was  and  how  it  has  been  made.  I  sup 
posed  that  for  an  honest  man,  conscious  of  his 


302  Stephen   A.   Douglas        [Oct.  7 

own  rectitude,  that  explanation  would  be  suf 
ficient.  I  did  not  wait  for  him,  after  the  mis 
take  was  made,  to  call  my  attention  to  it,  but 
frankly  explained  it  at  once  as  an  honest  man 
would.  I  also  gave  the  authority  on  which  I 
had  stated  that  these  resolutions  were  adopted 
by  the  Springfield  Republican  convention;  that 
I  had  seen  them  quoted  by  Major  Harris  in  a 
debate  in  Congress,  as  having  been  adopted  by 
the  first  Republican  State  convention  in  Illi 
nois,  and  that  I  had  written  to  him  and  asked 
him  for  the  authority  as  to  the  time  and  place 
of  their  adoption;  that  Major  Harris  being  ex 
tremely  ill,  Charles  H.  Lanphier  had  written 
to  me  for  him  that  they  were  adopted  at  Spring 
field,  on  the  ^th  of  October,  1854,  and  had  sent 
me  a  copy  of  the  Springfield  paper  containing 
them.  I  read  them  from  the  newspaper  just 
as  Mr.  Lincoln  reads  the  proceedings  of  meet 
ings  held  years  ago  from  the  newspapers. 

After  giving  that  explanation,  I  did  not  think 
there  was  an  honest  man  in  the  State  of  Illinois 
who  doubted  that  I  had  been  led  into  the  error, 
if  it  was  such,  innocently,  in  the  way  I  detailed ; 
and  I  will  now  say  that  I  do  not  now  believe  that 
there  is  an  honest  man  on  the  face  of  the  globe 
who  will  not  regard  with  abhorrence  and  dis 
gust  Mr.  Lincoln's  insinuations  of  my  com 
plicity  in  that  forgery,  if  it  was  a  forgery.  Does 


1858]       Rejoinder  at  Galesburg         303 

Mr.  Lincoln  wish  to  push  these  things  to  the 
point  of  personal  difficulties  here?  I  com 
menced  this  contest  by  treating  him  courteously 
and  kindly;  I  always  spoke  of  him  in  words  of 
respect,  and  in  return  he  has  sought,  and  is  now 
seeking,  to  divert  public  attention  from  the  enor 
mity  of  his  revolutionary  principles  by  impeach 
ing  men's  sincerity  and  integrity,  and  inviting 
personal  quarrels. 

I  desire  to  conduct  this  contest  with  him  like 
a  gentleman,  but  I  spurn  the  insinuation  of  com 
plicity  and  fraud  made  upon  the  simple  circum 
stance  of  an  editor  of  a  newspaper  having  made 
a  mistake  as  to  the  place  where  a  thing  was  done, 
but  not  as  to  the  thing  itself.  These  resolutions 
were  the  platform  of  this  Republican  party  of 
Mr.  Lincoln's  of  that  year.  They  were  adopted 
in  a  majority  of  the  Republican  counties  in  the 
State ;  and  when  I  asked  him  at  Ottawa  whether 
they  formed  the  platform  upon  which  he  stood, 
he  did  not  answer,  and  I  could  not  get  an  answer 
out  of  him.  He  then  thought,  as  I  thought,  that 
those  resolutions  were  adopted  at  the  Springfield 
convention,  but  excused  himself  by  saying  that 
he  was  not  there  when  they  were  adopted,  but 
had  gone  to  Tazewell  court  in  order  to  avoid 
being  present  at  the  convention.  He  saw  them 
published  as  having  been  adopted  at  Springfield, 
and  so  did  I,  and  he  knew  that  if  there  was  a 


304  Stephen  A.   Douglas        [Oct.  7 

mistake  in  regard  to  them,  that  I  had  nothing 
under  heaven  to  do  with  it.  Besides,  you  find 
that  in  all  these  northern  counties  where  the  Re 
publican  candidates  are  running  pledged  to  him, 
that  the  conventions  which  nominated  them 
adopted  that  identical  platform. 

One  cardinal  point  in  that  platform  which  he 
shrinks  from  is  this — that  there  shall  be  no  more 
slave  States  admitted  into  the  Union,  even  if  the 
people  want  them.  Lovejoy  stands  pledged 
against  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States. 
["Right;  so  do  we."]  So  do  you,  you  say. 
Farnsworth  stands  pledged  against  the  admission 
of  any  more  slave  States.  Washburne  stands 
pledged  the  same  way.  The  candidate  for 
the  legislature  who  is  running  on  Lincoln's 
ticket  in  Henderson  and  Warren  stands  com 
mitted  by  his  vote  in  the  legislature  to  the  same 
thing,  and  I  am  informed,  but  do  not  know  of 
the  fact,  that  your  candidate  here  is  also  so 
pledged.  ["Hurrah  for  him!  Good!"]  Now, 
you  Republicans  all  hurrah  for  him,  and  for  the 
doctrine  of  "no  more  slave  States,"  and  yet  Lin 
coln  tells  you  that  his  conscience  will  not  per 
mit  him  to  sanction  that  doctrine,  and  complains 
because  the  resolutions  I  read  at  Ottawa  made 
him,  as  a  member  of  the  party,  responsible  for 
sanctioning  the  doctrine  of  no  more  slave  States. 
You  are  one  way,  you  confess,  and  he  is  or  pre- 


1858]       Rejoinder  at  Galesburg         305 

tends  to  be  the  other,  and  yet  you  are  both  gov 
erned  by  principle  in  supporting  one  another. 
If  it  be  true,  as  I  have  shown  it  is,  that  the  whole 
Republican  party  in  the  northern  part  of  the 
State  stands  committed  to  the  doctrine  of  no 
more  slave  States,  and  that  this  same  doctrine 
is  repudiated  by  the  Republicans  in  the  other 
part  of  the  State,  I  wonder  whether  Mr.  Lin 
coln  and  his  party  do  not  present  the  case  which 
he  cited  from  the  Scriptures,  of  a  house  divided 
against  itself  which  cannot  stand! 

I  desire  to  know  what  are  Mr.  Lincoln's  prin 
ciples  and  the  principles  of  his  party.  I  hold, 
and  the  party  with  which  I  am  identified  holds, 
that  the  people  of  each  State,  old  and  new,  have 
the  right  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for  them 
selves,  and  when  I  used  the  remark  that  I  did  not 
care  whether  slavery  was  voted  up  or  down,  I 
used  it  in  the  connection  that  I  was  for  allowing 
Kansas  to  do  just  as  she  pleased  on  the  slavery 
question.  I  said  that  I  did  not  care  whether  they 
vote  slavery  up  or  down,  because  they  had  the 
right  to  do  as  they  pleased  on  the  question,  and 
therefore  my  action  would  not  be  controlled  by 
any  such  consideration.  Why  cannot  Abraham 
Lincoln,  and  the  party  with  which  he  acts,  speak 
out  their  principles  so  that  they  may  be  under 
stood?  Why  do  they  claim  to  be  one  thing  in 
one  part  of  the  State  and  another  in  the  other 


306  Stephen  A.   Douglas        [Oct.  7 

part?  Whenever  I  allude  to  the  Abolition  doc 
trines,  which  he  considers  a  slander  to  be  charged 
with  being  in  favor  of,  you  all  indorse  them, 
and  hurrah  for  them,  not  knowing  that  your 
candidate  is  ashamed  to  acknowledge  them. 

I  have  a  few  words  to  say  upon  the  Dred 
Scott  decision,  which  has  troubled  the  brain  of 
Mr.  Lincoln  so  much.  He  insists  that  that  de 
cision  would  carry  slavery  into  the  free  States, 
notwithstanding  that  the  decision  says  directly 
the  opposite;  and  goes  into  a  long  argument  to 
make  you  believe  that  I  am  in  favor  of,  and 
would  sanction,  the  doctrine  that  would  allow 
slaves  to  be  brought  here  and  held  as  slaves  con 
trary  to  our  constitution  and  laws.  Mr.  Lin 
coln  knew  better  when  he  asserted  this ;  he  knew 
that  one  newspaper,  and  so  far  as  is  within  my 
knowledge  but  one,  ever  asserted  that  doctrine, 
and  that  I  was  the  first  man  in  either  House  of 
Congress  that  read  that  article  in  debate,  and 
denounced  it  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  as  revo 
lutionary.  When  the  Washington  "Union"  on 
the  i  jth  of  last  November,  published  an  arti 
cle  to  that  effect,  I  branded  it  at  once,  and  de 
nounced  it,  and  hence  the  "Union"  has  been  pur 
suing  me  ever  since.  Mr.  Toombs,  of  Georgia, 
replied  to  me,  and  said  that  there  was  not  a  man 
in  any  of  the  slave  States  south  of  the  Potomac 
River  that  held  any  such  doctrine.  Mr.  Lin- 


1858]       Rejoinder  at  Galesburg         307 

coin  knows  that  there  is  not  a  member  of  the 
Supreme  Court  who  holds  that  doctrine;  he 
knows  that  every  one  of  them,  as  shown  by  their 
opinions,  holds  the  reverse. 

Why  this  attempt,  then,  to  bring  the  Supreme 
Court  into  disrepute  among  the  people?  It 
looks  as  if  there  was  an  effort  being  made  to 
destroy  public  confidence  in  the  highest  judicial 
tribunal  on  earth.  Suppose  he  succeeds  in 
destroying  public  confidence  in  the  court,  so 
that  the  people  will  not  respect  its  decisions, 
but  will  feel  at  liberty  to  disregard  them,  and 
resist  the  laws  of  the  land,  what  will  ,he  have 
gained?  He  will  have  changed  the  govern 
ment  from  one  of  laws  into  that  of  a  mob,  in 
which  the  strong  arm  of  violence  will  be  sub 
stituted  for  the  decisions  of  the  courts  of  justice. 
He  complains  because  I  did  not  go  into  an  ar 
gument  reviewing  Chief  Justice  Taney's  opin 
ion,  and  the  other  opinions  of  the  different 
judges,  to  determine  whether  their  reasoning 
is  right  or  wrong  on  the  questions  of  law.  What 
use  would  that  be?  He  wants  to  take  an  appeal 
from  the  Supreme  Court  to  this  meeting  to  de 
termine  whether  the  questions  of  law  were  de 
cided  properly.  He  is  going  to  appeal  from 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  to  every 
town  meeting,  in  the  hope  that  he  can  excite 
a  prejudice  against  that  court,  and  on  the  wave 


308  Stephen   A.   Douglas        [Oct.  7 

of  that  prejudice  ride  into  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  when  he  could  not  get  there  on 
his  own  principles,  or  his  own  merits.  Suppose 
he  should  succeed  in  getting  into  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  what  then  will  he  have  to  do 
with  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the 
Dred  Scott  case?  Can  he  reverse  that  decision 
when  he  gets  there?  Can  he  act  upon  it?  Has 
the  Senate  any  right  to  reverse  it  or  revise  it? 
He  will  not  pretend  that  it  has.  Then  why 
drag  the  matter  into  this  contest,  unless  for  the 
purpose  of  making  a  false  issue,  by  which  he 
can  divert  public  attention  from  the  real  issue. 
He  has  cited  General  Jackson  in  justification 
of  the  war  he  is  making  on  the  decision  of  the 
court.  Mr.  Lincoln  misunderstands  the  history 
of  the  country  if  he  believes  there  is  any  par 
allel  in  the  two  cases.  It  is  true  that  the  Su 
preme  court  once  decided  that  if  a  bank  of  the 
United  States  was  a  necessary  fiscal  agent  of  the 
government  it  was  constitutional,  and  if  not,  that 
it  was  unconstitutional,  and  also,  that  whether 
or  not  it  was  necessary  for  that  purpose  was  a 
political  question  for  Congress,  and  not  a  judi 
cial  one  for  the  courts  to  determine.  Hence  the 
court  would  not  determine  the  bank  unconsti 
tutional.  Jackson  respected  the  decision,  obeyed 
the  law,  executed  it,  and  carried  it  into  effect 
during  its  existence;  but  after  the  charter  of  the 


1858]        Rejoinder  at   Galesburg        309 

bank  expired,  and  a  proposition  was  made  to 
create  a  new  bank,  General  Jackson  said:  "It 
is  unnecessary  and  improper,  and  therefore  I 
am  against  it  on  constitutional  grounds  as  well 
as  those  of  expediency."  Is  Congress  bound  to 
pass  every  act  that  is  constitutional?  Why, 
there  are  a  thousand  things  that  are  constitu 
tional,  but  yet  are  inexpedient  and  unnecessary, 
and  you  surely  would  not  vote  for  them  merely 
because  you  had  the  right  to?  And  because 
General  Jackson  would  not  do  a  thing  which 
he  had  a  right  to  do,  but  did  not  deem  expedient 
or  proper,  Mr.  Lincoln  is  going  to  justify  him 
self  in  doing  that  which  he  has  no  right  to  do. 
I  ask  him  whether  he  is  not  bound  to  respect 
and  obey  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court 
as  well  as  I  ? 

The  Constitution  has  created  that  court  to 
decide  all  constitutional  questions  in  the  last 
resort,  and  when  such  decisions  have  been  made 
they  become  the  law  of  the  land,  and  you,  and 
he,  and  myself,  and  every  other  good  citizen 
are  bound  by  them.  Yet  he  argues  that  I  am 
bound  by  their  decisions,  and  he  is  not.  He 
says  that  their  decisions  are  binding  on  Demo 
crats,  but  not  on  Republicans.  Are  not  Re 
publicans  bound  by  the  laws  of  the  land  as 
well  as  Democrats?  And  when  the  court  has 
fixed  the  construction  of  the  Constitution  on 


310  Stephen  A.   Douglas       [Oct.  7 

the  validity  of  a  given  law,  is  not  their  de 
cision  binding  upon  Republicans  as  well  as  upon 
Democrats?  Is  it  possible  that  you  Republi 
cans  have  the  right  to  raise  your  mobs  and  op 
pose  the  laws  of  the  land  and  the  constituted 
authorities,  and  yet  hold  us  Democrats  bound 
to  obey  them?  My  time  is  within  half  a  minute 
of  expiring,  and  all  I  have  to  say  is  that  I  stand 
by  the  laws  of  the  land.  I  stand  by  the  Con 
stitution  as  our  fathers  made  it,  by  the  laws  as 
they  are  enacted,  and  by  the  decisions  of  the 
court  upon  all  points  within  their  jurisdiction 
as  they  are  pronounced  by  the  highest  tribunal 
on  earth;  and  any  man  who  resists  these  must 
resort  to  mob-law  and  violence  to  overturn  the 
government  of  laws. 


1858]  Speech  at  Quincy  311 


SIXTH  JOINT  DEBATE,  AT  QUINCY,  ILLINOIS, 
October  13,  1858. 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Opening  Speech. 

LADIES     AND     GENTLEMEN:       I 
have  had  no  immediate  conference  with 
Judge  Douglas,  but  I  will  venture  to 
say  that  he  and  I  will  perfectly  agree  that  your 
entire  silence,  both  when  I  speak  and  when  he 
speaks,  will  be  most  agreeable  to  us. 

In  the  month  of  May,  1856,  the  elements  in 
the  State  of  Illinois  which  have  since  consoli 
dated  into  the  Republican  party  assembled  to 
gether  in  a  State  convention  at  Bloomington. 
They  adopted  that  that  time  what,  in  political 
language,  is  called  a  platform.  In  June  of  the 
same  year,  the  elements  of  the  Republican  party 
in  the  nation  assembled  together  in  a  national 
convention  at  Philadelphia.  They  adopted 
what  is  called  the  national  platform.  In  June, 
1858, — the  present  year, — the  Republicans  of 
Illinois  reassembled  at  Springfield  in  State  con 
vention,  and  adopted  again  their  platform,  as  I 
suppose,  not  differing  in  any  essential  particu 
lar  from  either  of  the  former  ones,  but  perhaps 


312  Abraham   Lincoln         [Oct.  13 

adding  something  in  relation  to  the  new  devel 
opments  of  political  progress  in  the  country. 

The  convention  that  assembled  in  June  last 
did  me  the  honor,  if  it  be  one,  and  I  esteem  it 
such,  to  nominate  me  as  their  candidate  for  the 
United  States  Senate.  I  have  supposed  that,  in 
entering  upon  this  canvass,  I  stood  generally 
upon  these  platforms.  We  are  now  met  together 
on  the  1 3th  of  October  of  the  same  year,  only 
four  months  from  the  adoption  of  the  last  plat 
form,  and  I  am  unaware  that  in  this  canvass, 
from  the  beginning  until  to-day,  any  one  of  our 
adversaries  has  taken  hold  of  our  platforms,  or 
laid  his  finger  upon  anything  he  calls  wrong  in 
them. 

In  the  very  first  one  of  these  joint  discussions 
between  Senator  Douglas  and  myself,  Senator 
Douglas,  without  alluding  at  all  to  these  plat 
forms,  or  to  any  one  of  them,  of  which  I  have 
spoken,  attempted  to  hold  me  responsible  for  a 
set  of  resolutions  passed  long  before  the  meet 
ing  of  either  one  of  these  conventions  of  which 
I  have  spoken.  And  as  a  ground  for  holding 
me  responsible  for  these  resolutions,  he  assumed 
that  they  had  been  passed  at  a  State  convention 
of  the  Republican  party,  and  that  I  took  part 
in  that  convention.  It  was  discovered  afterward 
that  this  was  erroneous,  that  the  resolutions 
which  he  endeavored  to  hold  me  responsible  for 


1858]  Speech  at  Quincy  313 

had  not  been  passed  by  any  State  convention 
anywhere,  'had  not  been  passed  at  Springfield, 
where  he  supposed  they  had,  or  assumed 
that  they  had,  and  that  they  had  been 
passed  in  no  convention  in  which  I  had 
taken  part.  The  judge,  nevertheless,  was 
not  willing  to  give  up  the  point  that  he  was 
endeavoring  to  make  upon  me,  and  he  there 
fore  thought  to  still  hold  me  to  the  point  that 
he  was  endeavoring  to  make,  by  showing  that 
the  resolutions  that  he  read  had  been  passed  at 
a  local  convention  in  the  northern  part  of  the 
State,  although  it  was  not  a  local  convention 
that  embraced  my  residence  at  all,  nor  one  that 
reached,  as  I  suppose,  nearer  than  one  hundred 
and  fifty  or  two  hundred  miles  of  where  I  was 
when  it  met,  nor  one  in  which  I  took  any  part 
at  all.  He  also  introduced  other  resolutions, 
passed  at  other  meetings,  and  by  combining  the 
whole,  although  they  were  all  antecedent  to  the 
two  State  conventions,  and  the  one  national  con 
vention  I  have  mentioned,  still  he  insisted  and 
now  insists,  as  I  understand,  that  I  am  in  some 
way  responsible  for  them. 

At  Jonesboro,  on  our  third  meeting,  I  insisted 
to  the  judge  that  I  was  in  no  way  rightfully  held 
responsible  for  the  proceedings  of  this  local 
meeting  or  convention  in  which  I  had  taken  no 
part,  and  in  which  I  was  in  no  way  embraced; 


Abraham   Lincoln.        [Oct.  13 

but  I  insisted  to  him  that  if  he  thought  I  was 
responsible  for  every  man  or  every  set  of  men 
everywhere,  who  happen  to  be  my  friends,  the 
rule  ought  to  work  both  ways,  and  he  ought  to 
be  responsible  for  the  acts  and  resolutions  of  all 
men  or  sets  of  men  who  were  or  are  now  his  sup 
porters  and  friends,  and  gave  him  a  pretty  long 
string  of  resolutions,  passed  by  men  who  are  now 
his  friends,  and  announcing  doctrines  for  which 
he  does  not  desire  to  be  held  responsible. 

This  still  does  not  satisfy  Judge  Douglas. 
He  still  adheres  to  his  proposition,  that  I  am 
responsible  for  what  some  of  my  friends  in  dif 
ferent  parts  of  the  State  have  done;  but  that  he 
is  not  responsible  for  what  his  have  done.  At 
least,  so  I  understand  him.  But,  in  addition  to 
that,  the  judge,  at  our  meeting  in  Galesburg  last 
week,  undertakes  to  establish  that  I  am  guilty 
of  a  species  of  double-dealing  with  the  public 
—that  I  make  speeches  of  a  certain  sort  in  the 
North,  among  the  Abolitionists,  which  I  would 
not  make  in  the  South,  and  that  I  make  speeches 
of  a  certain  sort  in  the  South  which  I  would  not 
make  in  the  North.  I  apprehend,  in  the  course 
I  have  marked  out  for  myself,  that  I  shall  not 
have  to  dwell  at  very  great  length  upon  this  sub 
ject. 

As  this  was  done  in  the  judge's  opening  speech 
at  Galesburg,  I  had  an  opportunity,  as  I  had  the 


1858]  Speech  at  Quincy  315 

middle  speech  then,  of  saying  something  in  an 
swer  to  it. 

He  brought  .forward  a  quotation  or  two  from 
a  speech  of  mine,  delivered  at  Chicago,  and 
then,  to  contras"  with  it,  he  brought  forward 
an  extract  from  a  speech  of  mine  at  Charleston, 
in  which  he  insisted  that  I  was  greatly  incon 
sistent,  and  insisted  that  his  conclusion  followed 
that  I  was  playing  a  double  part,  and  speaking 
in  one  region  one  way,  and  in  another  region 
another  way.  I  have  not  time  now  to  dwell  on 
this  as  long  as  I  wo  ild  like,  and  wish  only  now 
to  requote  that  portion  of  my  speech  at  Charles 
ton,  which  the  jud^e  quoted,  and  then  make 
some  comments  upon  !t. 

This  he  quotes  from  .ne  as  being  delivered  at 
Charleston,  and  I  believe  correctly: 

I  will  say,  then,  that  I  am  not,  nor  ever  have  been, 
in  favor  of  bringing  about  in  any  way  the  social  and 
political  equality  of  the  white  and  black  races  —  that  I 
am  not  nor  ever  have  been  in  favor  of  making  voters 
or  jurors  of  negroes,  nor  of  qualifying  them  to  hold 
office,  nor  to  intermarry  with  white  people ;  and  I  will 
say  in  addition  to  this  that  there  is  a  physical  differ 
ence  between  the  white  and  black  races  which  will  ever 
forbid  the  two  races  living  together  on  terms  of  social 
and  political  equality.  And  inasmuch  as  they  cannot 
so  live,  while  they  do  remain  together,  there  must  be 
the  position  of  superior  and  inferior,  and  I,  as  much 


316  Abraham  Lincoln         [Oct.  13 

as  any  other  man,  am  In  favor  of  having  the  superior 
position  assigned  to  the  white  race. 

This,  I  believe,  is  the  entire  quotation  from 
the  Charleston  speech,  as  Judge  Douglas  made 
it.  His  comments  are  as  follows: 

Yes,  here  you  find  men  who  hurrah  for  Lincoln, 
and  say  he  is  right  when  he  discards  all  distinction 
between  races,  or  when  he  declares  that  he  discards 
the  doctrine  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  superior 
and  inferior  race;  and  Abolitionists  are  required  and 
expected  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lincoln  because  he  goes  for 
the  equality  of  races,  holding  that  in  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  the  white  mm  and  negro  were  de 
clared  equal,  and  endowed  b  /  divine  law  with  equal 
ity.  And  down  South  with  the  old-line  Whigs,  with 
the  Kentuckians,  the  Virginians,  and  the  Tennessee- 
ans,  he  tells  you  that  there  is  a  physical  difference  be 
tween  the  races,  making  the  one  superior,  the  other 
inferior,  and  he  is  in  favor  of  maintaining  the  supe 
riority  of  the  white  race  over  the  negro. 

Those  are  the  judge's  comments.  Now  I  wish 
to  show  you,  that  a  month,  or  only  lacking  three 
days  of  a  month,  before  I  made  the  speech  at 
Charleston  which  the  judge  quotes  from,  he  had 
himself  heard  me  say  substantially  the  same 
thing.  It  was  in  our  first  meeting,  at  Ottawa, 
and  I  will  say  a  word  about  where  it  was,  and 
the  atmosphere  it  was  in,  after  a  while — but  at 


1858]  Speech  at  Quincy  317 

our  first  meeting,  at  Ottawa,  I  read  an  extract 
from  an  old  speech  of  mine,  made  nearly  four 
years  ago,  not  merely  to  show  my  sentiments, 
but  to  show  that  my  sentiments  were  long  en 
tertained  and  openly  expressed;  in  which  extract 
I  expressly  declared  that  my  own  feelings  would 
not  admit  of  a  social  and  political  equality  be 
tween  the  white  and  black  races,  and  that  even 
if  my  own  feelings  would  admit  of  it,  I  still 
knew  that  the  public  sentiment  of  the  country 
would  not,  and  that  such  a  thing  was  an  utter 
impossibility,  or  substantially  that.  That  extract 
from  my  old  speech,  the  reporters,  by  some  sort 
of  accident,  passed  over,  and  it  was  not  reported. 
I  lay  no  blame  upon  anybody.  I  suppose  they 
thought  that  I  would  hand  it  over  to  them,  and 
dropped  reporting  while  I  was  reading  it,  but 
afterward  went  away  without  getting  it  from 
me.  At  the  end  of  that  quotation  from  my  old 
speech,  which  I  read  at  Ottawa,  I  made  the 
comments  which  were  reported  at  that  time,  and 
which  I  will  now  read,  and  ask  you  to  notice 
how  very  nearly  they  are  the  same  as  Judge 
Douglas  says  were  delivered  by  me,  down  in 
Egypt.  After  reading  I  added  these  words: 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  don't  want  to  read  at  any  great 
er  length,  but  this  is  the  true  complexion  of  all  I  have 
ever  said  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery,  or 
the  black  race,  and  this  is  the  whole  of  it;  and  any- 


318  Abraham  Lincoln         [Oct.  13 

thing  that  argues  me  into  his  idea  of  perfect  social 
and  political  equality  with  the  negro  is  but  a  specious 
and  fantastical  arrangement  of  words  by  which  a  man 
can  prove  a  horse-chestnut  to  be  a  chestnut  horse.  I 
will  say  here,  while  upon  this  subject,  that  I  have  no 
purpose,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  interfere  with  the 
institution  of  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists.  I 
believe  I  have  no  lawful  right  to  do  so,  and  I  have 
no  inclination  to  do  so.  I  have  no  purpose  to  intro 
duce  political  and  social  equality  between  the  white 
and  black  races.  There  is  a  physical  difference  be 
tween  the  two,  which,  in  my  judgment,  will  probably 
forever  forbid  their  living  together  on  the  footing  of 
perfect  equality,  and,  inasmuch  as  it  becomes  a  neces 
sity  that  there  must  be  a  difference,  I,  as  well  as  Judge 
Douglas,  am  in  favor  of  the  race  to  which  I  belong 
having  the  superior  position.  I  have  never  said  any 
thing  to  the  contrary,  but  I  hold  that,  notwithstanding 
all  this,  there  is  no  reason  in  the  world  why  the  negro 
is  not  entitled  to  all  the  natural  rights  enumerated  in 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  —  the  right  to  life, 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  I  hold  that  he 
is  as  much  entitled  to  these  as  the  white  man.  I  agree 
with  Judge  Douglas  that  he  is  not  my  equal  in  many 
respects,  certainly  not  in  color  —  perhaps  not  in  intel 
lectual  and  moral  endowments ;  but  in  the  right  to  eat 
the  bread,  without  the  leave  of  anybody  else,  which 
his  own  hand  earns,  he  is  my  equal,  and  the  equal  of 
Judge  Douglas,  and  the  equal  of  every  living  man. 

I  have  chiefly  introduced  this  for  the  pur 
pose  of  meeting  the  judge's  charge  that  the  quo- 


1858]  Speech  at  Quincy  319 

tation  he  took  from  my  Charleston  speech  was 
what  I  would  say  down  south  among  the  Ken- 
tuckians,  the  Virginians,  etc.,  but  would  not  say 
in  the  regions  in  which  was  supposed  to  be  more 
of  the  Abolition  element.    I  now  make  this  com 
ment:  that  speech  from  which  I  have  now  read 
the  quotation,   and  which  is  there  given  cor 
rectly,  perhaps  too  much  so  for  good  taste,  was 
made  away  up  north  in  the  Abolition  district  of 
this  State  par  excellence — in  the  Lovejoy  dis 
trict — in  the  personal  presence  of  Lovejoy;  for 
he  was  on  the  stand  with  us  when  I  made  it. 
It  had  been  made  and  put  in  print  in  that  re 
gion  only  three  days  less  than  a  month  before 
the  speech  made  at  Charleston,  the  like  of  which 
Judge  Douglas  thinks  I  would  not  make  where 
there  was  any  Abolition  element.     I  only  refer 
to  this  matter  to  say  that  I  am  altogether  uncon 
scious  of  having  attempted  any  double-dealing 
anywhere;  that  upon  one  occasion  I  may  say 
one  thing  and  leave  other  things  unsaid,  and  vice 
versa;  but  that  I  have  said  anything  on  one  oc 
casion  that  is  inconsistent  with  what  I  have  said 
elsewhere,  I  deny — at  least,  I  deny  it  so  far  as 
the  intention  is  concerned.     I  find  that  I  have 
devoted  to  this  topic  a  larger  portion  of  my  time 
than  I  had  intended.     I  wished  to  show — but  I 
will  pass  it  upon  this  occasion — that  in  the  senti 
ment  I  have  occasionally  advanced  upon  the 


320  Abraham  Lincoln         [Oct.  13 

Declaration  of  Independence,  I  am  entirely 
borne  out  by  the  sentiments  advanced  by  our  old 
Whig  leader,  Henry  Clay,  and  I  have  the  book 
here  to  show  it  from;  but  because  I  have  already 
occupied  more  time  than  I  intended  to  do  on 
that  topic,  I  pass  over  it. 

At  Galesburg  I  tried  to  show  that  by  the  Dred 
Scott  decision,  pushed  to  its  legitimate  conse 
quences,  slavery  would  be  established  in  all  the 
States  as  well  as  in  the  Territories.  I  did  this 
because,  upon  a  former  occasion,  I  had  asked 
Judge  Douglas  whether,  if  the  Supreme  Court 
should  make  a  decision  declaring  that  the  States 
had  not  the  power  to  exclude  slavery  from  their 
limits,  he  would  adopt  and  follow  that  decision 
as  a  rule  of  political  action ;  and  because  he  had 
not  directly  answered  that  question,  but  had 
merely  contented  himself  with  sneering  as  it,  I 
again  introduced  it,  and  tried  to  show  that  the 
conclusion  that  I  stated  followed  inevitably  and 
logically  from  the  proposition  already  decided 
by  the  court.  Judge  Douglas  had  the  privilege 
of  replying  to  me  at  Galesburg,  and  again  he 
gave  me  no  direct  answer  as  to  whether  he 
would  or  would  not  sustain  such  decision  if 
made.  I  give  him  this  third  chance  to  say  yes 
or  no.  He  is  not  obliged  to  do  either, — prob 
ably  he  will  not  do  either, — but  I  give  him  the 
third  chance.  I  tried  to  show  then  that 


1858]  Speech  at  Quincy  321 

this  result,  this  conclusion,  inevitably  followed 
from  the  point  already  decided  by  the  court. 
The  judge,  in  his  reply,  again  sneers  at  the 
thought  of  the  court  making  any  such  decision, 
and  in  the  course  of  his  remarks  upon  this  sub 
ject,  uses  the  language  which  I  will  now  read. 
Speaking  of  me,  the  judge  says :  "He  goes  on 
and  insists  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision  would 
carry  slavery  into  the  free  States,  notwithstand 
ing  the  decision  itself  says  the  contrary."  And 
he  adds:  "Mr.  Lincoln  knows  that  there  is  no 
member  of  the  Supreme  Court  that  holds  that 
doctrine.  He  knows  that  every  one  of  them  in 
their  opinions  held  the  reverse." 

I  especially  introduce  this  subject  again  for 
the  purpose  of  saying  that  I  have  the  Dred  Scott 
decision  here,  and  I  will  thank  Judge  Douglas 
to  lay  his  finger  upon  the  place  in  the  entire 
opinions  of  the  court  where  any  one  of  them 
"says  the  contrary."  It  is  very  hard  to  affirm 
a  negative  with  entire  confidence.  I  say,  how 
ever,  that  I  have  examined  that  decision  with 
a  good  deal  of  care,  as  a  lawyer  examines  a  de 
cision,  and  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  do  so, 
the  court  has  nowhere  in  its  opinions  said  that 
the  States  have  the  power  to  exclude  slavery, 
nor  have  they  used  other  language  substantially 
that.  I  also  say,  so  far  as  I  can  find,  not  one 
of  the  concurring  judges  has  said  that  the  States 


322  Abraham  Lincoln         [Oct.  13 

can  exclude  slavery,  nor  said  anything  that  was 
substantially  that.  The  nearest  approach  that 
any  one  of  them  has  made  to  it,  so  far  as  I 
can  find,  was  by  Judge  Nelson,  and  the  ap 
proach  he  made  to  it  was  exactly,  in  sub 
stance,  the  Nebraska  bill — that  the  States 
had  the  exclusive  power  over  the  question  of 
slavery,  so  far  a's  they  are  not  limited  by  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States.  I  ask  the  ques 
tion,  therefore,  if  the  non-concurring  judges, 
McLean  or  Curtis,  had  asked  to  get  an  express 
declaration  that  the  States  could  absolutely  ex 
clude  slavery  from  their  limits,  what  reason 
have  we  to  believe  that  it  would  not  have  been 
voted  down  by  the  majority  of  the  judges,  just 
as  Chase's  amendment  was  voted  down  by  Judge 
Douglas  and  his  compeers  when  it  was  offered 
to  the  Nebraska  bill? 

Also  at  Galesburg  I  said  something  in  regard 
to  those  Springfield  resolutions  that  Judge 
Douglas  had  attempted  to  use  upon  me  at  Otta 
wa,  and  commented  at  some  length  upon  the  fact 
that  they  were,  as  presented,  not  genuine. 
Judge  Douglas  in  his  reply  to  me  seemed  to  be 
somewhat  exasperated.  He  said  he  never 
would  have  believed  that  Abraham  Lincoln,  as 
he  kindly  called  me,  would  have  attempted 
such  a  thing  as  I  had  attempted  upon  that  occa 
sion;  and  among  other  expressions  which  he 


1858]  Speech  at  Quincy  323 

used  toward  me,  was  that  I  dared  to  say  for 
gery — that  I  had  dared  to  say  forgery  [turning 
to  Judge  Douglas].     Yes,  judge,  I  did  dare  to 
say  forgery.     But  in  this  political  canvass  the 
judge  ought  to  remember  that  I  was  not  the 
first  who  dared  to  say  forgery.     At  Jacksonville 
Judge    Douglas    made  a  speech  in  answer  to 
something  said  by  Judge  Trumbull,  and  at  the 
close  of  what  he  said  upon  that  subject,  he  dared 
to  say  that  Trumbull  had  forged  his  evidence. 
He  said,  too,  that  he  should  not  concern  him 
self  with  Trumbull  any  more,  but  thereafter  he 
should  hold  Lincoln  responsible  for  the  slan 
ders  upon  him.     When  I  met  him  at  Charleston 
after  that,  although  I  think  that  I  should  not 
have  noticed  the  subject  if  he  had  not  said  he 
would  hold  me  responsible  for  it,  I  spread  out 
before  him  the  statements  of  the  evidence  that 
Judge  Trumbull  had  used,  and  I  asked  Judge 
Douglas,  piece  by  piece,  to  put  his  finger  upon 
one  piece  of  all  that  evidence  that  he  would 
say  was  a  forgery.     When  I  went  through  with 
each  and  every  piece,  Judge  Douglas  did  not 
dare  then  to  say  that  any  piece  of  it  was  a  for 
gery.     So  it  seems  that  there  are  some  things 
that  Judge  Douglas  dares  to  do,  and  some  that 
he  dares  not  to  do.    [A  voice:  "It's  the  same 
thing  with  you."]     Yes,  sir,  it's  the  same  thing 
with  me. 


324  Abraham   Lincoln         [Oct.  13 

I  do  dare  to  say  forgery  when  it's  true,  and 
don't  dare  to  say  forgery  when  it's  false.  Now, 
I  will  say  here  to  this  audience  and  to  Judge 
Douglas,  I  have  not  dared  to  say  he  committed 
a  forgery,  and  I  never  shall  until  I  know  it; 
but  I  did  dare  to  say — just  to  suggest  to  the 
judge — that  a  forgery  had  been  committed, 
which  by  his  own  showing  had  been  traced  to 
him  and  two  of  his  friends.  I  dared  to  suggest 
to  him  that  he  had  expressly  promised  in  one 
of  his  public  speeches  to  investigate  that  matter, 
and  I  dared  to  suggest  to  him  that  there  was  an 
implied  promise  that  when  he  investigated  it 
he  would  make  known  the  result.  I  dared  to 
suggest  to  the  judge  that  he  could  not  expect 
to  be  quite  clear  of  suspicion  of  that  fraud,  for 
since  the  time  that  promise  was  made  he  had 
been  with  those  friends,  and  had  not  kept  his 
promise  in  regard  to  the  investigation  and  the 
report  upon  it.  I  am  not  a  very  daring  man, 
but  I  dared  that  much,  judge,  and  I  am  not 
much  scared  about  it  yet.  When  the  judge  says 
he  wouldn't  have  believed  of  Abraham  Lincoln 
that  he  would  have  made  such  an  attempt  as 
that,  he  reminds  me  of  the  fact  that  he  entered 
upon  this  canvass  with  the  purpose  to  treat  me 
courteously;  that  touched  me  somewhat.  It  set 
me  to  thinking.  I  was  aware,  when  it  was  first 
agreed  that  Judge  Douglas  and  I  were  to  have 


1858]  Speech  at  Quincy  325 

these  seven  joint  discussions,  that  they  were  the 
successive  acts  of  a  drama — perhaps  I  should 
say,  to  be  enacted  not  merely  in  the  face  of  au 
diences  like  this,  but  in  the  face  of  the  nation, 
and  to  some  extent,  by  my  relation  to  him,  and 
not  from  anything  in  myself,  in  the  face  of  the 
world;  and  I  am  anxious  that  they  should  be 
conducted  with  dignity  and  in  the  good  temper 
which  would  be  befitting  the  vast  audience  be 
fore  which  it  was  conducted.  But  when  Judge 
Douglas  got  home  from  Washington  and  made 
his  first  speech  in  Chicago,  the  evening  after 
ward  I  made  some  sort  of  a  reply  to  it.  His 
second  speech  was  made  at  Bloomington,  in 
which  he  commented  upon  my  speech  at  Chica 
go,  and  said  that  I  had  used  language  ingenious 
ly  contrived  to  conceal  my  intentions,  or  words 
to  that  effect.  Now  I  understand  that  this  is  an 
imputation  upon  my  veracity  and  my  candor. 
I  do  not  know  what  the  judge  understood  by  it, 
but  in  our  first  discussion  at  Ottawa,  he  led  off 
by  charging  a  bargain,  somewhat  corrupt  in  its 
character,  upon  Trumbull  and  myself — that  we 
had  entered  into  a  bargain,  one  of  the  terms  of 
which  was  that  Trumbull  was  to  Abolitionize 
the  old  Democratic  party,  and  I,  Lincoln,  was 
to  Abolitionize  the  Old  Whig  party — I  pretend 
ing  to  be  as  good  an  old-line  Whig  as  ever. 
Judge  Douglas  may  not  understand  that  he  im- 


326  Abraham   Lincoln         [Oct.  13 

plicated  my  truthfulness  and  my  honor  when 
he  said  I  was  doing  one  thing  and  pretending 
another;  and  I  misunderstood  him  if  he  thought 
he  was  treating  me  in  a  dignified  way,  as  a  man 
of  honor  and  truth,  as  he  now  claims  he  was 
disposed  to  treat  me.  Even  after  that  time,  at 
Galesburg,  when  he  brings  forward  an  extract 
from  a  speech  made  at  Chicago,  and  an  extract 
from  a  speech  made  at  Charleston,  to  prove  that 
I  was  trying  to  play  a  double  part, — that  I  was 
trying  to  cheat  the  public,  and  get  votes  upon 
one  set  of  principles  at  one  place  and  upon  an 
other  set  of  principles  at  another  place, — I  do 
not  understand  but  what  he  impeaches  my 
honor,  my  veracity,  and  my  candor;  and  because 
he  does  this,  I  do  not  understand  that  I  am 
bound,  if  I  see  a  truthful  ground  for  it,  to  keep 
my  hands  off  of  him.  As  soon  as  I  learned  that 
Judge  Douglas  was  disposed  to  treat  me  in  this 
way,  I  signified  in  one  of  my  speeches  that  I 
should  be  driven  to  draw  upon  whatever  of 
humble  resources  I  might  have — to  adopt  a  new 
course  with  him.  I  was  not  entirely  sure  that 
I  should  be  able  to  hold  my  own  with  him,  but 
I  at  least  had  the  purpose  made  to  do  as  well 
as  I  could  upon  him;  and  now  I  say  that  I  will 
not  be  the  first  to  cry  "Hold!"  I  think  it  ori 
ginated  with  the  judge,  and  when  he  quits,  I 
probably  will.  But  I  shall  not  ask  any  favors 


1858]  Speech  at  Quincy  327 

at  all.  He  asks  me,  or  he  asks  the  audience, 
if  I  wish  to  push  this  matter  to  the  point  of  per 
sonal  difficulty.  I  tell  him,  No.  He  did  not 
make  a  mistake,  in  one  of  his  early  speeches, 
when  he  called  me  an  "amiable"  man,  though 
perhaps  he  did  when  he  called  me  an  "intelli 
gent"  man.  It  really  hurts  me  very  much  to 
suppose  that  I  have  wronged  anybody  on  earth. 
I  again  tell  him,  No!  I  very  much  prefer, 
when  this  canvass  shall  be  over,  however  it  may 
result,  that  we  at  least  part  without  any  bitter 
recollections  of  personal  difficulties. 

The  judge,  in  his  concluding  speech  at  Gales- 
burg,  says  that  I  was  pushing  this  matter  to  a 
personal  difficulty  to  avoid  the  responsibility  for 
the  enormity  of  my  principles.  I  say  to  the 
judge  and  this  audience  now,  that  I  will  again 
state  our  principles  as  well  as  I  hastily  can  in 
all  their  enormity,  and  if  the  judge  hereafter 
chooses  to  confine  himself  to  a  war  upon  these 
principles,  he  will  probably  not  find  me  depart 
ing  from  the  same  course. 

We  have  in  this  nation  the  element  of  domes 
tic  slavery.  It  is  a  matter  of  absolute  certainty 
that  it  is  a  disturbing  element.  It  is  the  opinion 
of  all  the  great  men  who  have  expressed  an  opin 
ion  upon  it,  that  it  is  a  dangerous  element.  We 
keep  up  a  controversy  in  regard  to  it.  That 
controversy  necessarily  springs  from  difference 


328  Abraham  Lincoln         [Oct.  13 

of  opinion,  and  if  we  can  learn  exactly — can  re 
duce  to  the  lowest  elements — what  that  differ 
ence  of  opinion  is,  we  perhaps  shall  be  better 
prepared  for  discussing  the  different  systems  of 
policy  that  we  would  propose  in  regard  to  that 
disturbing  element.  I  suggest  that  the  differ 
ence  of  opinion,  reduced  to  its  lowest  terms,  is 
no  other  than  the  difference  between  the  men 
who  think  slavery  a  wrong  and  those  who  do 
not  think  it  wrong.  The  Republican  party 
think  it  wrong — we  think  it  is  a  moral,  a  social, 
and  a  political  wrong.  We  think  it  is  a  wrong 
not  confining  itself  merely  to  the  persons  or 
the  States  where  it  exists,  but  that  it  is  a  wrong 
which  in  its  tendency,  to  say  the  least,  affects  the 
existence  of  the  whole  nation.  Because  we 
think  it  wrong,  we  propose  a  course  of  policy 
that  shall  deal  with  it  as  a  wrong.  We  deal 
with  it  as  with  any  other  wrong,  in  so  far  as  we 
can  prevent  its  growing  any  larger,  and  so  deal 
with  it  that  in  the  run  of  time  there  may  be  some 
promise  of  an  end  to  it.  We  have  a  due  regard 
to  the  actual  presence  of  it  amongst  us,  and  the 
difficulties  of  getting  rid  of  it  in  any  satisfactory 
way,  and  all  the  constitutional  obligations 
thrown  about  it.  I  suppose  that  in  reference 
both  to  its  actual  existence  in  the  nation,  and  to 
our  constitutional  obligations,  we  have  no  right 
at  all  to  disturb  it  in  the  States  where  it  exists, 


1858]  Speech  at  Quincy  329 

and  we  profess  that  we  have  no  more  inclina 
tion  to  disturb  it  than  we  have  the  right  to  do 
it.  We  go  further  than  that:  we  don't  propose 
to  disturb  it  where,  in  one  instance,  we  think 
the  Constitution  would  permit  us.  We  think 
the  Constitution  would  permit  us  to  disturb  it 
in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Still  we  do  not 
propose  to  do  that,  unless  it  should  be  in  terms 
which  I  don't  suppose  the  nation  is  very  likely 
soon  to  agree  to — the  terms  of  making  the  eman 
cipation  gradual  and  compensating  the  unwill 
ing  owners.  Where  we  suppose  we  have  the 
constitutional  right,  we  restrain  ourselves  in  ref 
erence  to  the  actual  existence  of  the  institution 
and  the  difficulties  thrown  about  it.  We  also 
oppose  it  as  an  evil  so  far  as  it  seeks  to  spread 
itself.  We  insist  on  the  policy  that  shall  re 
strict  it  to  its  present  limits.  We  don't  suppose 
that  in  doing  this  we  violate  anything  due  to 
the  actual  presence  of  the  institution,  or  any 
thing  due  to  the  constitutional  guaranties 
thrown  around  it. 

We  oppose  the  Dred  Scott  decision  in  a  cer 
tain  way,  upon  which  I  ought  perhaps  to  ad 
dress  you  a  few  words.  We  do  not  propose  that 
when  Dred  Scott  has  been  decided  to  be  a  slave 
by  the  court,  we,  as  a  mob,  will  decide  him  to 
be  free.  We  do  not  propose  that,  when  any 
other  one,  or  one  thousand,  shall  be  decided  by 


330  Abraham   Lincoln         [Oct.  13 

that  court  to  be  slaves,  we  will  in  any  violent 
way  disturb  the  rights  of  property  thus  settled; 
but  we  nevertheless  do  oppose  that  decision  as 
a  political  rule,  which  shall  be  binding  on  the 
voter  to  vote  for  nobody  who  thinks  it  wrong, 
which  shall  be  binding  on  the  members  of  Con 
gress  or  the  President  to  favor  no  measure  that 
does  not  actually  concur  with  the  principles  of 
that  decision.  We  do  not  propose  to  be  bound 
by  it  as  a  political  rule  in  that  way,  because  we 
think  it  lays  the  foundation  not  merely  of  en 
larging  and  spreading  out  what  we  consider  an 
evil,  but  it  lays  the  foundation  for  spreading  that 
evil  into  the  States  themselves.  We  propose  so 
resisting  it  as  to  have  it  reversed  if  we  can,  and 
a  new  judicial  rule  established  upon  this  sub 
ject. 

I  will  add  this,  that  if  there  be  any  man  who 
does  not  believe  that  slavery  is  wrong  in  the 
three  aspects  which  I  have  mentioned,  or  in  any 
one  of  them,  that  man  is  misplaced  and  ought  to 
leave  us.  While,  on  the  other  hand,  if  there  be 
any  man  in  the  Republican  party  who  is  impa 
tient  over  the  necessity  springing  from  its  actual 
presence,  and  is  impatient  of  the  constitutional 
guaranties  thrown  around  it,  and  would  act  in 
disregard  of  these,  he  too  is  misplaced,  stand 
ing  with  us.  He  will  find  his  place  somewhere 
else ;  for  we  have  a  due  regard,  so  far  as  we  are 


1858]  Speech  at  Quincy  331 

capable  of  understanding  them,  for  all  these 
things.  This,  gentlemen,  as  well  as  I  can  give 
it,  is  a  plain  statement  of  our  principles  in  all 
their  enormity. 

I  will  say  now  that  there  is  a  sentiment  in  the 
country  contrary  to  me — a  sentiment  which 
holds  that  slavery  is  not  wrong,  and  therefore  it 
goes  for  the  policy  that  does  not  propose  deal 
ing  with  it  as  a  wrong.  That  policy  is  the  Dem 
ocratic  policy,  and  that  sentiment  is  the  Dem 
ocratic  sentiment.  If  there  be  a  doubt  in  the 
mind  of  any  one  of  this  vast  audience  that  this 
is  really  the  central  idea  of  the  Democratic 
party,  in  relation  to  this  subject,  I  ask  him  to 
bear  with  me  while  I  state  a  few  things  tend 
ing,  as  I  think,  to  prove  that  proposition.  In 
the  first  place,  the  leading  man — I  think  I  may 
do  my  friend  Judge  Douglas  the  honor  of  call 
ing  him  such — advocating  the  present  Demo 
cratic  policy  never  himself  says  it  is  wrong. 
He  has  the  high  distinction,  so  far  as  I  know, 
of  never  having  said  slavery  is  either  right  or 
wrong.  Almost  everybody  else  says  one  or  the 
other  but  the  judge  never  does.  If  there  be  a 
man  in  the  Democratic  party  who  thinks  it  is 
wrong,  and  yet  clings  to  that  party,  I  suggest 
to  him  in  the  first  place  that  his  leader  don't 
talk  as  he  does,  for  he  never  says  that  it  is 
wrong.  In  the  second  place,  I  suggest  to  him 


332  Abraham   Lincoln         [Oct.  13 

that  if  he  will  examine  the  policy  proposed  to 
be  carried  forward,  he  will  find  that  he  care 
fully  excludes  the  idea  that  there  is  anything 
wrong  in  it.  If  you  will  examine  the  argu 
ments  that  are  made  on  it,  you  will  find  that 
every  one  carefully  excludes  the  idea  that  there 
is  anything  wrong  in  slavery.  Perhaps  that 
Democrat  who  says  he  is  as  much  opposed  to 
slavery  as  I  am,  will  tell  me  that  I  am  wrong 
about  this.  I  wish  him  to  examine  his  own 
course  in  regard  to  this  matter  a  moment,  and 
then  see  if  his  opinion  will  not  be  changed  a 
little.  You  say  it  is  wrong;  but  don't  you  con 
stantly  object  to  anybody  else  saying  so?  Do 
you  not  constantly  argue  that  this  is  not  the  right 
place  to  oppose  it?  You  say  it  must  not  be  op 
posed  in  the  free  States,  because  slavery  is  not 
there;  it  must  not  be  opposed  in  the  slave  States, 
because  it  is  there;  it  must  not  be  opposed  in 
politics,  because  that  will  make  a  fuss ;  it  must 
not  be  opposed  in  the  pulpit,  because  it  is  not 
religion.  Then  where  is  the  place  to  oppose 
it?  There  is  no  suitable  place  to  oppose  it. 
There  is  no  plan  in  the  country  to  oppose  this 
evil  overspreading  the  continent,  which  you  say 
yourself  is  coming.  Frank  Blair  and  Gratz 
Brown  tried  to  get  up  a  system  of  gradual  eman 
cipation  in  Missouri,  had  an  election  in  August, 
and  got  beat;  and  you,  Mr.  Democrat,  threw 


1858]  Speech  at  Quincy  333 

up  your  hat  and  hallooed,  "  Hurrah  for  Demo 
cracy!" 

So  I  say  again,  that  in  regard  to  the  argu 
ments  that  are  made,  when  Judge  Douglas  says 
he  "don't  care  whether  slavery  is  voted  up  or 
down,"  whether  he  means  that  as  an  individual 
expression  of  sentiment,  or  only  as  a  sort  of 
statement  of  his  views  on  national  policy,  it  is 
alike  true  to  say  that  he  can  thus  argue  logically 
if  he  don't  see  anything  wrong  in  it;  but  he 
cannot  say  so  logically  if  he  admits  that  slavery 
is  wrong.  He  cannot  say  that  he  would  as  soon 
see  a  wrong  voted  up  as  voted  down.  When 
Judge  Douglas  says  that  whoever  or  whatever 
community  wants  slaves,  they  have  a  right  to 
have  them,  he  is  perfectly  logical  if  there  is 
nothing  wrong  in  the  institution ;  but  if  you  ad 
mit  that  it  is  wrong,  he  cannot  logically  say  that 
anybody  has  a  right  to  do  wrong.  When  he 
says  that  slave  property  and  horse  and  hog  prop 
erty  are  alike  to  be  allowed  to  go  into  the  Ter 
ritories,  upon  the  principles  of  equality,  he  is 
reasoning  truly  if  there  is  no  difference  between 
them  as  property;  but  if  the  one  is  property, 
held  rightfully,  and  the  other  is  wrong,  then 
there  is  no  equality  between  the  right  and 
wrong;  so  that,  turn  it  in  any  way  you  can,  in 
all  the  arguments  sustaining  the  Democratic 
policy,  and  in  that  policy  itself,  there  is  a  care- 


334  Abraham   Lincoln         [Oct.  13 

ful,  studied  exclusion  of  the  idea  that  there  is 
anything  wrong  in  slavery.  Let  us  understand 
this.  I  am  not,  just  here,  trying  to  prove  that 
we  are  right  and  they  are  wrong.  I  have  been 
stating  where  we  and  they  stand,  and  trying  to 
show  what  is  the  real  difference  between  us ;  and 
I  now  can  say  that  whenever  we  can  get  the 
question  distinctly  stated, — can  get  all  these 
men  who  believe  that  slavery  is  in  some  of  these 
respects  wrong  to  stand  and  act  with  us  in 
treating  it  as  a  wrong, — then,  and  not  till  then, 
I  think,  will  we  in  some  way  come  to  an  end  of 
this  slavery  agitation. 


1858]  Reply  at  Quincy  335 


Mr.  Douglas's  Reply  in  the  Quincy  Joint  De 
bate. 

LADIES   AND   GENTLEMEN:     Per 
mit  me  to  say  that  unless  silence  is  ob 
served  it  will  be  impossible  for  me  to 
be  heard  by  this  immense  crowd,  and  my  friends 
can  confer  no  higher  favor  upon  me  than  by 
omitting  all  expressions  of  applause  or  approba 
tion.     I  desire  to  be  heard  rather  than  to  be  ap 
plauded.     I  wish  to  address  myself  to  your  rea 
son,  your  judgment,  your  sense  of  justice,  and 
not  to  your  passions. 

I  regret  that  Mr.  Lincoln  should  have  deem 
ed  it  proper  for  him  to  again  indulge  in  gross 
personalities  and  base  insinuations  in  regard  to 
the  Springfield  resolutions.  It  has  imposed  up 
on  me  the  necessity  of  using  some  portion  of  my 
time  for  the  purpose  of  calling  your  attention 
to  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  it  will  then  be  for 
you  to  say  what  you  think  of  a  man  who  can 
predicate  such  a  charge  upon  the  circumstances 
he  has  in  this.  I  had  seen  the  platform  adopted 
by  a  Republican  congressional  convention  held 
in  Aurora,  the  second  congressional  district,  in 
September,  1854,  published  as  purporting  to  be 


336  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Oct.  13 

the  platform  of  the  Republican  party.  That 
platform  declared  that  the  Republican  party 
was  pledged  never  to  admit  another  slave  State 
into  the  Union,  and  also  that  it  was  pledged  to 
prohibit  slavery  in  all  the  Territories  of  the 
United  States, — not  only  all  that  we  then  had, 
but  all  that  we  should  thereafter  acquire, — and 
to  repeal  unconditionally  the  fugitive-slave  law, 
abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and 
prohibit  the  slave-trade  between  the  different 
States.  These  and  other  articles  against  slavery 
were  contained  in  this  platform,  and  unani 
mously  adopted  by  the  Republican  congression 
al  convention  in  that  district.  I  had  also  seen 
that  the  Republican  congressional  conventions 
at  Rockford,  in  the  first  district,  and  at  Bloom- 
ington,  in  the  third,  had  adopted  the  same  plat 
form  that  year,  nearly  word  for  word,  and  had 
declared  it  to  be  the  platform  of  the  Republican 
party.  I  had  noticed  that  Major  Thomas  L, 
Harris,  a  member  of  Congress  from  the  Spring 
field  district,  had  referred  to  that  platform  in 
a  speech  in  Congress,  as  having  been  adopted 
by  the  first  Republican  State  convention  which 
assembled  in  Illinois.  When  I  had  occasion  to 
use  the  fact  in  this  canvass,  I  wrote  to  Major 
Harris  to  know  on  what  day  that  convention 
was  held,  and  to  ask  him  to  send  me  its  proceed 
ings.  He  being  sick,  Charles  H.  Lanphier  an- 


1858]  Reply   at    Quincy  337 

swered  my  letter  by  sending  me  the  published 
proceedings  of  the  convention  held  at  Spring 
field  on  the  5th  of  October,  1854,  as  they  ap 
peared  in  the  report  of  the  " State  Register." 
I  read  those  resolutions  from  that  newspaper 
the  same  as  any  of  you  would  refer  back  and 
quote  any  fact  from  the  files  of  a  newspaper 
which  had  published  it.  Mr.  Lincoln  pretends 
that  after  I  had  so  quoted  those  resolutions  he 
discovered  that  they  had  never  been  adopted  at 
Springfield.  He  does  not  deny  their  adoption 
by  the  Republican  party  at  Aurora,  at  Bloom- 
ington,  and  at  Rockford,  and  by  nearly  all  the 
Republican  county  conventions  in  northern  Il 
linois  where  his  party  is  in  a  majority;  but  mere 
ly  because  they  were  not  adopted  on  the  "spot" 
on  which  I  said  they  were,  he  chooses  to  quib 
ble  about  the  place  rather  than  meet  and  discuss 
the  merits  of  the  resolutions  themselves.  I 
stated  when  I  quoted  them  that  I  did  so  from 
the  "State  Register."  I  gave  my  authority. 
Lincoln  believed  at  the  time,  as  he  has  since 
admitted,  that  they  had  been  adopted  at  Spring 
field,  as  published.  Does  he  believe  now  that 
I  did  not  tell  the  truth  when  I  quoted  those  res 
olutions?  He  knows  in  his  heart  that  I  quoted 
them  in  good  faith,  believing  at  the  time  that 
they  had  been  adopted  at  Springfield.  I  would 
consider  myself  an  infamous  wretch  if,  under 


338  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Oct.  13 

such  circumstances,  I  could  charge  any  man 
with  being  a  party  to  a  trick  or  a  fraud.  And 
I  will  tell  him,  too,  that  it  will  not  do  to  charge 
a  forgery  on  Charles  H.  Lanphier  or  Thomas 
L.  Harris.  No  man  on  earth,  who  knows  them, 
and  knows  Lincoln,  would  take  his  oath  against 
their  word.  There  are  not  two  men  in  the  State 
of  Illinois  who  have  higher  characters  for  truth, 
for  integrity,  for  moral  character,  and  for  ele 
vation  of  tone,  as  gentlemen,  than  Mr.  Lan 
phier  and  Mr.  Harris.  Any  man  who  attempts 
to  make  such  charges  as  Mr.  Lincoln  has  indulg 
ed  in  against  them,  only  proclaims  himself  a 
slanderer. 

I  will  now  show  you  that  I  stated  with  entire 
fairness,  as  soon  as  it  was  made  known  to  me, 
that  there  was  a  mistake  about  the  spot  where 
the  resolutions  had  been  adopted,  although  their 
truthfulness,  as  a  declaration  of  the  principles 
of  the  Republican  party,  had  not  and  could  not 
be  questioned.  I  did  not  wait  for  Lincoln  to 
point  out  the  mistake;  but  the  moment  I  dis 
covered  it,  I  made  a  speech,  and  published  it 
to  the  world,  correcting  the  error.  I  corrected 
it  myself,  as  a  gentleman  and  an  honest  man, 
and  as  I  always  feel  proud  to  do  when  I  have 
made  a  mistake.  I  wish  Mr.  Lincoln  could 
show  that  he  has  acted  with  equal  fairness  and 
truthfulness  when  I  have  convinced  him  that  he 


1858]  Reply   at    Quincy  339 

has  been  mistaken.  I  will  give  you  an  illustra 
tion  to  show  you  how  he  acts  in  a  similar  case: 
In  a  speech  at  Springfield  he  charged  Chief 
Justice  Taney  and  his  associates,  President 
Pierce,  President  Buchanan,  and  myself  with 
having  entered  into  a  conspiracy  at  the  time  the 
Nebraska  bill  was  introduced,  by  which  the 
Dred  Scott  decision  was  to  be  made  by  the  Su 
preme  Court,  in  order  to  carry  slavery  every 
where  under  the  Constitution.  I  called  his  at 
tention  to  the  fact  that  at  the  time  alluded  to— 
to-wit,  the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  bill- 
it  was  not  possible  that  such  a  conspiracy  could 
have  been  entered  into,  for  the  reason  that  the 
Dred  Scott  case  had  never  been  taken  before 
the  Supreme  Court,  and  was  not  taken  before 
it  for  a  year  after;  and  I  asked  him  to  take  back 
that  charge.  Did  he  do  it?  I  showed  him 
that  it  was  impossible  that  the  charge  could  be 
true;  I  proved  it  by  the  record,  and  I  then  call 
ed  upon  him  to  retract  his  false  charge.  What 
was  his  answer?  Instead  of  coming  out  like  an 
honest  man  and  doing  so,  he  reiterated  the 
charge,  and  said  that  if  the  case  had  not  gone  up 
to  the  Supreme  Court  from  the  courts  of  Mis 
souri  at  the  time  he  charged  that  the  judges  of 
the  Supreme  Court  entered  into  the  conspiracy, 
yet  that  there  was  an  understanding  with  the 
Democratic  owners  of  Dred  Scott  that  they 


340  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Oct.  13 

would  take  it  up.  I  have  since  asked  him  who 
the  Democratic  owners  of  Dred  Scott  were,  but 
he  could  not  tell.  And  why?  Because  there 
were  no  such  Democratic  owners  in  existence. 
Dred  Scott  at  the  time  was  owned  by  the  Rev: 
Dr.  Chaffee,  an  Abolition  member  of  Congress, 
of  Springfield,  Massachusetts,  in  right  of  his 
wife.  He  was  owned  by  one  of  Lincoln's 
friends,  and  not  by  Democrats  at  all;  his  case 
was  conducted  in  court  by  Abolition  lawyers,  so 
that  both  the  prosecution  and  the  defense  were 
in  the  hands  of  the  Abolition  political  friends  of 
Mr.  Lincoln. 

Notwithstanding  I  thus  proved  by  the  record 
that  his  charge  against  the  Supreme  Court  was 
false,  instead  of  taking  it  back,  he  resorted  to 
another  false  charge  to  sustain  the  infamy  of  it. 
He  also  charged  President  Buchanan  with  hav 
ing  been  a  party  to  the  conspiracy.  I  directed 
his  attention  to  the  fact  that  th&  charge  could 
not  possibly  be  true,  for  the  reason  that  at  the 
time  specified  Mr.  Buchanan  was  not  in  Amer 
ica,  but  was  three  thousand  miles  off,  represent 
ing  the  United  States  at  the  Court  of  St.  James, 
and  had  been  there  for  a  year  previous,  and  did 
not  return  till  three  years  afterward.  Yet  I 
never  could  get  Mr.  Lincoln  to  take  back  his 
false  charge,  although  I  have  called  upon  him 
over  and  over  again.  He  refuses  to  do  it,  and 


1858]  Reply  at    Quincy  341 

either  remains  silent  or  resorts  to  other  tricks 
to  try  and  palm  his  slander  off  on  the  country. 
Therein  you  will  find  the  difference  between 
Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself.  When  I  make  a  mis 
take,  as  an  honest  man  I  correct  it  without  being 
asked  to  do  so ;  but  when  he  makes  a  false  charge 
he  sticks  to  it  and  never  corrects  it.  One  word 
more  in  regard  to  these  resolutions:  I  quoted 
them  at  Ottawa  merely  to  ask  Mr.  Lincoln 
whether  he  stood  on  that  platform.  That  was 
the  purpose  for  which  I  quoted  them.  I  did 
not  think  that  I  had  a  right  to  put  idle  questions 
to  him,  and  I  first  laid  a  foundation  for  my 
questions  by  showing  that  the  principles  which 
I  wished  him  either  to  affirm  or  deny  had  been 
adopted  by  some  portion  of  his  friends,  at  least, 
as  their  creed.  Hence  I  read  the  resolutions, 
and  put  the  questions  to  him,  and  he  then  refus 
ed  to  answer  them.  Subsequently — one  week 
afterward — he  did  answer  a  part  of  them,  but 
the  others  he  has  not  answered  up  to  this  day. 

Now  let  me  call  your  attention  for  a  moment 
to  the  answers  which  Mr.  Lincoln  made  at  Free- 
port  to  the  questions  which  I  propounded  to 
him  at  Ottawa,  based  upon  the  platform  adopt 
ed  by  a  majority  of  the  Abolition  counties  of 
the  State,  which  now,  as  then,  supported  him. 

In  answer  to  my  question  whether  he  in 
dorsed  the  Black  Republican  principle  of  "no 


342  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Oct.  13 

more  slave  States,"  he  answered  that  he  was 
not  pledged  against  the  admission  of  any  more 
slave  States,  but  that  he  would  be  very  sorry 
if  he  should  ever  be  placed  in  a  position  where 
he  would  have  to  vote  on  the  question ;  that  he 
would  rejoice  to  know  that  no  more  slave  States 
would  be  admitted  into  the  Union;  "but,"  he 
added,  "if  slavery  shall  be  kept  out  of  the  Terri 
tories  during  the  territorial  existence  of  any  one 
given  Territory,  and  then  the  people  shall,  hav 
ing  a  fair  chance  and  a  clear  field  when  they 
come  to  adopt  the  constitution,  do  such  an  ex 
traordinary  thing  as  to  adopt  a  slave  constitu 
tion,  uninfluenced  by  the  actual  presence  of  the 
institution  among  them,  I  see  no  alternative,  if 
we  own  the  country,  but  to  admit  them  into  the 
Union." 

The  point  I  wish  him  to  answer  is  this: 
Suppose  Congress  should  not  prohibit  slavery 
in  the  Territory,  and  it  applied  for  admis 
sion  with  a  constitution  recognizing  slavery, 
then  how  would  he  vote?  His  answer  at  Free- 
port  does  not  apply  to  any  Territory  in  America. 
I  ask  you  [turning  to  Lincoln],  will  you  vote 
to  admit  Kansas  into  the  Union,  with  just  such 
a  constitution  as  her  people  want,  with  slavery 
or  without,  as  they  shall  determine?  He  will 
not  answer.  I  have  put  that  question  to  him 
time  and  time  again,  and  have  not  been  able  to 


1 858]  Reply  at    Quincy  343 

get  an  answer  out  of  him.  I  ask  you  again, 
Lincoln,  will  you  vote  to  admit  New  Mexico, 
when  she  has  the  requisite  population,  with  such 
a  constitution  as  her  people  adopt,  either  recog 
nizing  slavery  or  not,  as  they  shall  determine? 
He  will  not  answer.  I  put  the  same  question  to 
him  in  reference  to  Oregon  and  the  new  States 
to  be  carved  out  of  Texas  in  pursuance  of  the 
contract  between  Texas  and  the  United  States, 
and  he  will  not  answer. 

He  will  not  answer  these  questions  in  refer 
ence  to  any  Territory  now  in  existence,  but 
says  that  if  Congress  should  prohibit  slavery 
in  a  Territory,  and  when  its  people  asked  for 
admission  as  a  State  they  should  adopt  slavery 
as  one  of  their  institutions,  that  he  supposes 
he  would  have  to  let  it  come  in.  I  submit  to 
you  whether  that  answer  of  his  to  my  question 
does  not  justify  me  in  saying  that  he  has  a  fer 
tile  genius  in  devising  language  to  conceal  his 
thoughts.  I  ask  you  whether  there  is  an  in 
telligent  man  in  America  who  does  not  believe 
that  that  answer  was  made  for  the  purpose 
of  concealing  what  he  intended  to  do.  He 
wished  to  make  the  old-line  Whigs  believe  that 
he  would  stand  by  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850,  which  declared  that  the  States  might 
come  into  the  Union  with  slavery,  or  without, 
as  they  pleased,  while  Lovejoy  and  his  Aboli- 


344  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Oct.  13 

tion  allies  up  north  explained  to  the  Abolition 
ists  that  in  taking  this  ground  he  preached  good 
Abolition  doctrine,  because  his  proviso  would 
not  apply  to  any  Territory  in  America,  and 
therefore  there  was  no  chance  of  his  being  gov 
erned  by  it.  It  would  have  been  quite  easy  for 
him  to  have  said  that  he  would  let  the  people  of 
a  State  do  just  as  they  pleased,  if  he  desired  to 
convey  such  an  idea.  Why  did  he  not  do  it? 
He  would  not  answer  my  question  directly  be 
cause,  up  north,  the  Abolition  creed  declares 
that  there  shall  be  no  more  slave  States,  while 
down  south,  in  Adams  County,  in  Coles,  and  in 
Sangamon,  he  and  his  friends  are  afraid  to  ad 
vance  that  doctrine.  Therefore  he  gives  an 
evasive  and  equivocal  answer,  to  be  construed 
one  way  in  the  south  and  another  way  in  the 
north,  which,  when  analyzed,  it  is  apparent  is 
not  an  answer  at  all  with  reference  to  any  Ter 
ritory  now  in  existence. 

Mr.  Lincoln  complains  that,  in  my  speech  the 
other  day  at  Galesburg,  I  read  an  extract  from 
a  speech  delivered  by  him  at  Chicago,  and  then 
another  from  his  speech  at  Charleston,  and  com 
pared  them,  thus  showing  the  people  that  he  had 
one  set  of  principles  in  one  part  of  the  State 
and  another  in  the  other  part.  And  how  does 
he  answer  that  charge?  Why,  he  quotes  from 
his  Charleston  speech  as  I  quoted  from  it,  and 


1858]  Reply    at   Quincy  345 

then  quotes  another  extract  from  a  speech  which 
he  made  at  another  place,  which  he  says  is  the 
same  as  the  extract  from  his  speech  at  Charles 
ton;  but  he  does  not  quote  the  extract  from  his 
Chicago  speech,  upon  which  I  convicted  him  of 
double-dealing.  I  quoted  from  his  Chicago 
speech  to  prove  that  he  held  one  set  of  principles 
up  north  among  the  Abolitionists,  and  from  his 
Charleston  speech  to  prove  that  he  held  another 
set  down  at  Charleston  and  in  southern  Illinois. 
In  his  answer  to  this  charge,  he  ignores  entirely 
his  Chicago  speech,  and  merely  argues  that  he 
said  the  same  thing  which  he  said  at  Charles 
ton  at  another  place.  If  he  did,  it  follows  that 
he  has  twice,  instead  of  once,  held  one  creed  in 
one  part  of  the  State,  and  a  different  creed  in 
another  part.  Up  at  Chicago,  in  the  opening 
of  the  campaign,  he  reviewed  my  reception 
speech,  and  undertook  to  answer  my  argument 
attacking  his  favorite  doctrine  of  negro  equal 
ity.  I  had  shown  that  it  was  a  falsification  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  to  pretend 
that  that  instrument  applied  to  and  included 
negroes  in  the  clause  declaring  that  all  men  are 
created  equal.  What  was  Lincoln's  reply?  I 
will  read  from  his  Chicago  speech,  and  the  one 
which  he  did  not  quote,  and  dare  not  quote,  in 
this  part  of  the  State.  He  said : 


346-          Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Oct.  13 

I  should  like  to  know  if,  taking  this  old  Declara 
tion  of  Independence,  which  declares  that  all  men  are 
equal  upon  principle,  and  making  exceptions  to  it, 
where  will  it  stop?  If  one  man  says  it  does  not  mean 
a  negro,  why  may  not  another  man  say  it  does  not 
mean  another  man?  If  that  declaration  is  not  the 
truth,  let  us  get  this  statute-book  in  which  we  find  it 
and  tear  it  out. 

There  you  find  that  Mr.  Lincoln  told  the 
Abolitionists  of  Chicago  that  if  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  did  not  declare  that  the  negro 
was  created  by  the  Almighty  the  equal  of  the 
white  man,  that  you  ought  to  take  that  instru 
ment  and  tear  out  the  clause  which  says  that  all 
men  are  created  equal.  But  let  me  call  your 
attention  to  another  part  of  the  same  speech. 
You  know  that  in  his  Charleston  speech,  an  ex 
tract  from  which  he  has  read,  he  declared  that 
the  negro  belongs  to  an  inferior  race,  is  phys 
ically  inferior  to  the  white  man,  and  should 
always  be  kept  in  an  inferior  position.  I  will 
now  read  to  you  what  he  said  at  Chicago  on 
that  point  In  concluding  his  speech  at  that 
place,  he  remarked : 

My  friends,  I  have  detained  you  about  as  long  as 
I  desire  to  do,  and  I  have  only  to  say,  let  us  discard 
all  this  quibbling  about  this  man  and  the  other  man 
—  this  race  and  that  race  and  the  other  race  being 


1858]  Reply  at   guincy  347 

inferior,  and  therefore  they  must  be  placed  in  an  in 
ferior  position,  discarding  our  standard  that  we  have 
left  us.  Let  us  discard  all  these  things,  and  unite  as 
one  people  throughout  this  land  until  we  shall  once 
more  stand  up  declaring  that  all  men  are  created 
equal. 

Thus  you  see  that  when  addressing  the  Chi 
cago  Abolitionists  he  declared  that  all  distinc 
tions  of  race  must  be  discarded  and  blotted  out, 
because  the  negro  stood  on  an  equal  footing  with 
the  white  man;  that  if  one  man  said  the  De 
claration  of  Independence  did  not  mean  a  negro 
when  it  declared  all  men  created  equal,  that 
another  man  would  say  that  it  did  not  mean 
another  man ;  and  hence  we  ought  to  discard  all 
difference  between  the  negro  race  and  all  other 
races,  and  declare  them  all  created  equal.  Did 
old  Giddings,  when  he  came  down  among  you 
four  years  ago,  preach  more  radical  Abolition 
ism  than  this?  Did  Lovejoy,  or  Lloyd  Garrison, 
or  Wendell  Phillips,  or  Fred  Douglass,  ever 
take  higher  Abolition  grounds  than  that?  Lin 
coln  told  you  that  I  had  charged  him  with  get 
ting  up  these  personal  attacks  to  conceal  the 
enormity  of  his  principles,  and  then  com 
menced  talking  about  something  else,  omitting 
to  quote  this  part  of  his  Chicago  speech  which 
contained  the  enormity  of  his  principles  to 
which  I  alluded.  He  knew  that  I  alluded  to 


348  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Oct.  13 

his  negro-equality  doctrines  when  I  spoke  of  the 
enormity  of  his  principles,  yet  he  did  not  find 
it  convenient  to  answer  on  that  point.  Having 
shown  you  what  he  said  in  his  Chicago  speech 
in  reference  to  negroes  being  created  equal  to 
white  men,  and  about  discarding  all  distinctions 
between  the  two  races,  I  will  again  read  to  you 
what  he  said  at  Charleston : 

I  will  say,  then,  that  I  am  not,  nor  ever  have  been, 
in  favor  of  bringing  about  in  any  way  the  social  and 
political  equality  of  the  white  and  black  races;  that 
I  am  not,  nor  ever  have  been,  in  favor  of  making 
voters  of  the  free  negroes,  or  jurors,  or  qualifying 
them  to  hold  office,  or  having  them  to  marry  with 
white  people.  I  will  say,  in  addition,  that  there  is  a 
physical  difference  between  the  white  and  black  races 
which,  I  suppose,  will  forever  forbid  the  two  races 
living  together  upon  terms  of  social  and  political 
equality;  and  inasmuch  as  they  cannot  so  live,  while 
they  do  remain  together,  there  must  be  the  position 
of  superior  and  inferior,  and  I,  as  much  as  any  other 
man,  am  in  favor  of  the  superior  position  being  as 
signed  to  the  white  man. 

[A  voice :  "That's  the  doctrine."] 
Mr.  Douglas:  Yes,  sir,  that  is  good  doctrine; 
but  Mr.  Lincoln  is  afraid  to  advocate  it  in  the 
latitude  of  Chicago,  where  he  hopes  to  get  his 
votes.  It  is  good  doctrine  in  the  anti-Abolition 
counties  for  him,  and  his  Chicago  speech  is  good 


1858]  Reply  at  Quincy  349 

doctrine  in  the  Abolition  counties.  I  assert,  on 
the  authority  of  these  two  speeches  of  Mr.  Lin 
coln,  that  he  holds  one  set  of  principles  in  the 
Abolition  counties,  and  a  different  and  contra 
dictory  set  in  the  other  counties.  I  do  not  ques 
tion  that  he  said  at  Ottawa  what  he  quoted,  but 
that  only  convicts  him  further, by  proving  that  he 
has  twice  contradicted  himself  instead  of  once. 
Let  me  ask  him  why  he  cannot  avow  his  prin 
ciples  the  same  in  the  north  as  in  the  south — 
the  same  in  every  county,  if  he  has  a  conviction 
that  they  are  just?  But  I  forgot — he  would  not 
be  a  Republican  if  his  principles  would  apply 
alike  to  every  part  of  the  country.  The  party 
to  which  he  belongs  is  bounded  and  limited  by 
geographical  lines.  With  their  principles  they 
cannot  even  cross  the  Mississippi  River  on  your 
ferry-boats.  They  cannot  cross  over  the  Ohio 
into  Kentucky.  Lincoln  himself  cannot  visit 
the  land  of  his  fathers,  the  scenes  of  his  child 
hood,  the  graves  of  his  ancestors,  and  carry  his 
Abolition  principles,  as  he  declared  them  at 
Chicago,  with  him. 

This  Republican  organization  appeals  to  the 
North  against  the  South ;  it  appeals  to  Northern 
passion,  Northern  prejudice,  and  Northern  am 
bition,  against  Southern  people,  Southern 
States,  and  Southern  institutions,  and  its  only 
hope  of  success  is  by  that  appeal.  Mr.  Lincoln 


350  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Oct.  13 

goes  on  to  justify  himself  in  making  a  war  upon 
slavery  upon  the  ground  that  Frank  Blair  and 
Gratz  Brown  did  not  succeed  in  their  warfare 
upon  the  institutions  in  Missouri.  Frank  Blair 
was  elected  to  Congress,  in  1856,  from  the  State 
of  Missouri,  as  a  Buchanan  Democrat,  and  he 
turned  Fremonter  after  the  people  elected  him, 
thus  belonging  to  one  party  before  his  election, 
and  another  afterward.  What  right,  then,  had 
he  to  expect,  after  having  thus  cheated  his  con 
stituency,  that  they  would  support  him  at  an 
other  election?  Mr.  Lincoln  thinks  that  it  is 
his  duty  to  preach  a  crusade  in  the  free  States 
against  slavery,  because  it  is  a  crime,  as  he  be 
lieves,  and  ought  to  be  extinguished,  and  be 
cause  the  people  of  the  slave  States  will  never 
abolish  it.  How  is  he  going  to  abolish  it? 
Down  in  the  southern  part  of  the  State  he  takes 
the  ground  openly  that  he  will  not  interfere 
with  slavery  where  it  exists,  and  says  that  he 
is  not  now  and  never  was  in  favor  of  interfering 
with  slavery  where  it  exists  in  the  States.  Well, 
if  he  is  not  in  favor  of  that,  how  does  he  expect 
to  bring  slavery  into  a  course  of  ultimate  ex 
tinction? 

How  can  he  extinguish  it  in  Kentucky,  in 
Virginia,  in  all  the  slave  States,  by  his  policy, 
if  he  will  not  pursue  a  policy  which  will  in 
terfere  with  it  in  the  States  where  it  exists?  In 


1858]  Reply  at  Quincy  351 

his  speech  at  Springfield  before  the  Abolition 
or  Republican  convention,  he  declared  his  hos 
tility  to  any  more  slave  States  in  this  language: 

Under  the  operation  of  that  policy  the  agitation 
has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly  aug 
mented.  In  my  opinion  it  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis 
shall  have  been  reached  and  passed.  "  A  house  di 
vided  against  itself  cannot  stand."  I  believe  this 
government  cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and 
half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved, 
—  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall, —  but  I  do  ex 
pect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all 
one  thing,  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of 
slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place 
it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that 
it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advo 
cates  will  push  it  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike 
lawful  in  all  the  States  —  old  as  well  as  new,  North 
as  well  as  South. 

Mr.  Lincoln  there  told  his  Abolition  friends 
that  this  government  could  not  endure  perman 
ently  divided  into  free  and  slave  States  as  our 
fathers  made  it,  and  that  it  must  become  all  free 
or  all  slave;  otherwise,  that  the  government 
could  not  exist.  How  then  does  Lincoln  pro 
pose  to  save  the  Union,  unless  by  compelling  all 
the  States  to  become  free,  so  that  the  house  shall 
not  be  divided  against  itself?  He  intends  mak 
ing  them  all  free;  he  will  preserve  the  Union  in 


352  Stephen   A.    Douglas      [Oct.  13 

that  way;  and  yet  he  is  not  going  to  interfere 
with  slavery  anywhere  it  now  exists.  How  is 
he  going  to  bring  it  about?  Why,  he  will  agi 
tate;  he  will  induce  the  North  to  agitate  until 
the  South  shall  be  worried  out,  and  forced  to 
abolish  slavery.  Let  us  examine  the  policy  by 
which  that  is  to  be  done.  He  first  tells  you 
that  he  would  prohibit  slavery  everywhere  in 
the  Territories.  He  would  thus  confine  slavery 
within  its  present  limits.  When  he  thus  gets 
it  confined,  and  surrounded,  so  that  it  cannot 
spread,  the  natural  laws  of  increase  will  go  on 
until  the  negroes  will  be  so  plenty  that  they  can 
not  live  on  the  soil.  He  will  hem  them  in  until 
starvation  seizes  them,  and  by  starving  them 
to  death  he  will  put  slavery  in  the  course  of  ulti 
mate  extinction.  If  he  is  not  going  to  interfere 
with  slavery  in  the  States,  but  intends  to  inter 
fere  and  prohibit  it  in  the  Territories,  and  thus 
smother  slavery  out,  it  naturally  follows  that  he 
can  extinguish  it  only  by  extinguishing  the 
negro  race ;  for  his  policy  would  drive  them  to 
starvation.  This  is  the  humane  and  Christian 
remedy  that  he  proposes  for  the  great  crime  of 
slavery. 

He  tells  you  that  I  will  not  argue  the  question 
whether  slavery  is  right  or  wrong.  I  tell  you 
why  I  will  not  do  it.  I  hold  that,  under  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  each  State  of 


1858]  Reply  at  Quincy  353 

this  Union  has  a  right  to  do  as  it  pleases  on  the 
subject  of  slavery.  In  Illinois  we  have  exer 
cised  that  sovereign  right  by  prohibiting  slav 
ery  within  our  own  limits.  I  approve  of  that 
line  of  policy.  We  have  performed  our  whole 
duty  in  Illinois.  We  have  gone  as  far  as  we 
have  a  right  to  go  under  the  Constitution  of  our 
common  country.  It  is  none  of  our  business 
whether  slavery  exists  in  Missouri  or  not.  Mis 
souri  is  a  sovereign  State  of  this  Union,  and  has 
the  same  right  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for 
herself  that  Illinois  has  to  decide  it  for  herself. 
Hence  I  do  not  choose  to  occupy  the  time  al 
lotted  to  me  in  discussing  a  question  that  we 
have  no  right  to  act  upon.  I  thought  that  you 
desired  to  hear  us  upon  those  questions  coming 
within  our  constitutional  power  of  action. 
Lincoln  will  not  discuss  these.  What  one  ques 
tion  has  he  discussed  that  comes  within  the 
power  or  calls  for  the  action  or  interference  of 
a  United  States  senator?  He  is  going  to  dis 
cuss  the  rightfulness  of  slavery  when  Congress 
cannot  act  upon  it  either  way.  He  wishes  to 
discuss  the  merits  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision 
when,  under  the  Constitution,  a  senator  has  no 
right  to  interfere  with  the  decision  of  judicial 
tribunals.  He  wants  your  exclusive  attention 
to  two  questions  that  he  has  no  power  to  act 
upon;  to  two  questions  that  he  could  not  vote 


354  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Oct.  13 

upon  if  he  was  in  Congress;  to  two  questions 
that  are  not  practical,  in  order  to  conceal  from 
your  attention  other  questions  which  he  might 
be  required  to  vote  upon  should  he  ever  become 
a  member  of  Congress.  He  tells  you  that  he 
does  not  like  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Suppose 
he  does  not,  how  is  he  going  to  help  himself? 
He  says  that  he  will  reverse  it.  How  will  he 
reverse  it?  I  know  of  but  one  mode  of  re 
versing  judicial  decisions,  and  that  is  by  appeal 
ing  from  the  inferior  to  the  superior  court. 
But  I  have  never  yet  learned  how  or  where  an 
appeal  could  be  taken  from  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States. 

The  Dred  Scott  decision  was  pronounced  by 
the  highest  tribunal  on  earth.  From  that  de 
cision  there  is  no  appeal  this  side  of  heaven. 
Yet  ]VIr.  Lincoln  says  he  is  going  to  reverse 
that  decision.  By  what  tribunal  will  he  re 
verse  it?  Will  he  appeal  to  a  mob?  Does  he 
intend  to  appeal  to  violence,  to  lynch-law? 
Will  he  stir  up  strife  and  rebellion  in  the  land, 
and  overthrow  the  court  by  violence?  He 
does  not  deign  to  tell  you  how  he  will  reverse 
the  Dred  Scott  decision,  but  keeps  appealing 
each  day  from  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  to  political  meetings  in  the  country.  He 
wants  me  to  argue  with  you  the  merits  of 
each  point  of  that  decision  before  this  political 


1858]  Reply  at  Quincy  355 

meeting.  I  say  to  you,  with  all  due  respect, 
that  I  choose  to  abide  by  the  decisions  of  the 
Supreme  Court  as  they  are  pronounced.  It 
is  not  for  me  to  inquire,  after  a  decision  is 
made,  whether  I  like  it  in  all  the  points  or  not. 
When  I  used  to  practise  law  with  Lincoln,  I 
never  knew  him  to  be  beat  in  a  case  that  he  did 
not  get  mad  at  the  judge  and  talk  about  ap 
pealing;  and  when  I  got  beat  I  generally 
thought  the  court  was  wrong,  but  I  never 
dreamed  of  going  out  of  the  court-house  and 
making  a  stump  speech  to  the  people  against 
the  judge,  merely  because  I  had  found  out  that 
I  did  not  know  the  law  as  well  as  he  did.  If 
the  decision  did  not  suit  me,  I  appealed  until 
I  got  to  the  Supreme  Court,  and  then  if  that 
court,  the  highest  tribunal  in  the  world,  de 
cided  against  me,  I  was  satisfied,  because  it  is 
the  duty  of  every  law-abiding  man  to  obey  the 
Constitution,  the  laws,  and  the  constituted  au 
thorities. 

He  who  attempts  to  stir  up  odium  and  re 
bellion  in  the  country  against  the  constituted 
authorities,  is  stimulating  the  passions  of  men 
to  resort  to  violence  and  to  mobs  instead  of  to 
the  law.  Hence  I  tell  you  that  I  take  the  de 
cisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  as  the  law  of  the 
land,  and  I  intend  to  obey  them  as  such. 

But  Mr.  Lincoln  says  that  I  will  not  answer 


356  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Oct.  13 

his  question  as  to  what  I  would  do  in  the  event 
of  the  court  making  so  ridiculous  a  decision  as 
he  imagines  they  would  by  deciding  that  the 
free  State  of  Illinois  could  not  prohibit  slavery 
within  her  own  limits.  I  told  him  at  Freeport 
why  I  would  not  answer  such  a  question.  I 
told  him  that  there  was  not  a  man  possessing 
any  brains  in  America,  lawyer  or  not,  who  ever 
dreamed  that  such  a  thing  could  be  done.  I 
told  him  then,  as  I  do  now,  that  by  all  the  prin 
ciples  set  forth  in  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  it  is 
impossible.  I  told  him  then,  as  I  do  now,  that 
it  is  an  insult  to  men's  understanding,  and  a 
gross  calumny  on  the  court,  to  presume  in  ad 
vance  that  it  was  going  to  degrade  itself  so  low 
as  to  make  a  decision  known  to  be  in  direct 
violation  of  the  Constitution.  [A  voice :  "The 
same  thing  was  said  about  the  Dred  Scott  de 
cision  before  it  passed."]  Perhaps  you  think 
that  the  court  did  the  same  thing  in  reference 
to  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  I  have  heard  a  man 
talk  that  way  before.  The  principles  contained 
in  the  Dred  Scott  decision  had  been  affirmed 
previously  in  various  other  decisions.  What 
court  or  judge  ever  held  that  a  negro  was  a 
citizen?  The  State  courts  had  decided  that 
question  over  and  over  again,  and  the  Dred 
Scott  decision  on  that  point  only  affirmed  what 
every  court  in  the  land  knew  to  be  the  law. 


1858]  Reply    at   Quincy  357 

But  I  will  not  be  drawn  off  into  an  argument 
upon  the  merits  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  It 
is  enough  for  me  to  know  that  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  created  the  Supreme  Court 
for  the  purpose  of  deciding  all  disputed  ques 
tions  touching  the  true  construction  of  that  in 
strument,  and  when  such  decisions  are  pro 
nounced,  they  are  the  law  of  the  land,  binding 
on  every  good  citizen.  Mr.  Lincoln  has  a  very 
convenient  mode  of  arguing  upon  the  subject. 
He  holds  that  because  he  is  a  Republican  he  is 
not  bound  by  the  decisions  of  the  court,  but  that 
I,  being  a  Democrat,  am  so  bound.  It  may  be 
that  Republicans  do  not  hold  themselves  bound 
by  the  lawrs  of  the  land  and  the  Constitution  of 
the  country  as  expounded  by  the  courts;  it  may 
be  an  article  in  the  Republican  creed  that  men 
who  do  not  like  a  decision  have  a  right  to  rebel 
against  it;  but  when  Mr.  Lincoln  preaches  that 
doctrine,  I  think  he  will  find  some  honest  Re 
publican — some  law-abiding  man  in  that  party 
— who  will  repudiate  such  a  monstrous  doc 
trine.  The  decision  in  the  Dred  Scott  case  is 
binding  on  every  American  citizen  alike;  and 
yet  Mr.  Lincoln  argues  that  the  Republicans 
are  not  bound  by  it  because  they  are  opposed 
to  it,  whilst  Democrats  are  bound  by  it  because 
we  will  not  resist  it.  A  Democrat  cannot  re 
sist  the  constituted  authorities  of  this  country; 


358  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Oct.  13 

a  Democrat  is  a  law-abiding  man ;  a  Democrat 
stands  by  the  Constitution  and  the  laws,  and  re 
lies  upon  liberty  as  protected  by  law,  and  not 
upon  mob  or  political  violence. 

I  have  never  yet  been  able  to  make  Mr.  Lin 
coln  understand,  nor  can  I  make  any  man  who  is 
determined  to  support  him,  right  or  wrong,  un 
derstand,  how  it  is  that  under  the  Dred  Scott 
decision  the  people  of  a  Territory,  as  well  as 
a  State,  can  have  slavery  or  not,  just  as  they 
please.  I  believe  that  I  can  explain  that  pro 
position  to  all  constitution-loving,  law-abiding 
men  in  a  way  that  they  cannot  fail  to  under 
stand.  Chief  Justice  Taney,  in  his  opinion  in 
the  Dred  Scott  case,  said  that  slaves  being  prop 
erty,  the  owner  of  them  has  a  right  to  take  them 
into  a  Territory  the  same  as  he  would  any  other 
property;  in  other  words,  that  slave  property, 
so  far  as  the  right  to  enter  into  a  Territory  is 
concerned,  stands  on  the  same  footing  with  other 
property.  Suppose  we  grant  that  proposition. 
Then  any  man  has  a  right  to  go  to  Kansas  and 
take  his  property  with  him,  but  when  he  gets 
there  he  must  rely  upon  the  local  law  to  pro 
tect  his  property,  whatever  it  may  be.  In  order 
to  illustrate  this,  imagine  that  three  of  you  con 
clude  to  go  to  Kansas.  One  takes  $10,000  worth 
of  slaves,  another  $10,000  worth  of  liquors,  and 
the  third  $10,000  worth  of  dry-goods.  When  the 


1858]  Reply  at    Quincy  359 

man  who  owns  the  dry-goods  arrives  out  there 
and  commences  selling  them,  he  finds  that  he  is 
stopped  and  prohibited  from  selling  until  he 
gets  a  license,  which  will  destroy  all  the  profits 
he  can  make  on  his  goods  to  pay  for.  When 
the  man  with  the  liquors  gets  there  and  tries 
to  sell,  he  finds  a  Maine  liquor-law  in  force 
which  prevents  him.  Now  of  what  use  is  his 
right  to  go  there  with  his  property  unless  he  is 
protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  that  right  after  he 
gets  there?  The  man  who  goes  there  with  his 
slaves  finds  that  there  is  no  law  to  protect  him 
when  he  arrives  there.  He  has  no  remedy  if 
his  slaves  run  away  to  another  country:  there 
is  no  slave  code  or  police  regulations,  and  the 
absence  of  them  excludes  his  slaves  from  the 
Territory  just  as  effectually  and  as  positively 
as  a  constitutional  prohibition  could. 

Such  was  the  understanding  when  the  Kansas 
and  Nebraska  bill  was  pending  in  Congress. 
Read  the  speech  of  Speaker  Orr,  of  South  Caro 
lina,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  1856, 
on  the  Kansas  question,  and  you  will  find  that 
he  takes  the  ground  that  while  the  owner  of  a 
slave  has  a  right  to  go  into  a  Territory  and 
carry  his  slaves  with  him,  that  he  cannot  hold 
them  one  day  or  hour  unless  there  is  a  slave 
code  to  protect  him.  He  tells  you  that  slavery 
would  not  exist  a  day  in  South  Carolina,  or  any 


360  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Oct.  13 

other  State,  unless  there  was  a  friendly  people 
and  friendly  legislation.  Read  the  speeches  of 
that  giant  in  intellect,  Alexander  H.  Stephens, 
of  Georgia,  and  you  will  find  them  to  the  same 
effect.  Read  the  speeches  of  Sam  Smith,  of 
Tennessee,  and  of  all  Southern  men,  and  you 
will  find  that  they  all  understood  this  doctrine 
then  as  we  understand  it  now.  Mr.  Lincoln 
cannot  be  made  to  understand  it,  however. 
Down  at  Jonesboro,  he  went  on  to  argue  that  if 
it  be  the  law  that  a  man  has  a  right  to  take  his 
slaves  into  territory  of  the  United  States  under 
the  Constitution,  that  then  a  member  of  Con 
gress  was  perjured  if  he  did  not  vote  for  a  slave 
code.  I  ask  him  whether  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  is  not  binding  upon  him  as  well 
as  on  me?  If  so,  and  he  holds  that  he  would 
be  perjured  if  he  did  not  vote  for  a  slave  code 
under  it,  I  ask  him  whether,  if  elected  to  Con 
gress,  he  will  so  vote?  I  have  a  right  to  his 
answer,  and  I  will  tell  you  why.  He  put  that 
question  to  me  down  in  Egypt,  and  did  it  with 
an  air  of  triumph.  This  was  about  the  form  of 
it:  "In  the  event  a  slave-holding  citizen  of  one 
of  the  Territories  should  need  and  demand  a 
slave  code  to  protect  his  slaves,  would  you  vote 
for  it?"  I  answered  him  that  a  fundamental 
article  in  the  Democratic  creed,  as  put  forth 
in  the  Nebraska  bill  and  the  Cincinnati  plat- 


1858]  Reply  at  Quincy  361 

form,  was  non-intervention  by  Congress  with 
slavery  in  the  States  and  Territories,  and  hence 
that  I  would  not  vote  in  Congress  for  any  code 
of  laws  either  for  or  against  slavery  in  any  Ter 
ritory.  I  will  leave  the  people  perfectly  free  to 
decide  that  question  for  themselves. 

Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  Washington  "Union" 
both  think  this  a  monstrous  bad  doctrine. 
Neither  Mr.  Lincoln  nor  the  Washington 
"Union"  likes  my  Freeport  speech  on  that  sub 
ject.  The  "Union,"  in  a  late  number,  has  been 
reading  me  out  of  the  Democratic  party  because 
I  hold  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those 
of  a  State,  have  the  right  to  have  slavery  or  not, 
as  they  please.  It  has  devoted  three  and  a  half 
columns  to  prove  certain  propositions,  one  of 
which  I  will  read.  It  says: 

We  propose  to  show  that  Judge  Douglas's  action 
in  1850  and  1854  was  taken  with  especial  reference 
to  the  announcement  of  doctrine  and  programme 
which  was  made  at  Freeport.  The  declaration  at 
Freeport  was  that  "  in  his  opinion  the  people  can,  by 
lawful  means,  exclude  slavery  from  a  Territory  be 
fore  it  comes  in  as  a  State  " ;  and  he  declared  that  his 
competitor  had  "  heard  him  argue  the  Nebraska  bill 
on  that  principle  all  over  Illinois  in  1854,  1855,  and 
1856,  and  had  no  excuse  to  pretend  to  have  any  doubt 
upon  that  subject. 

The  Washington  "Union"  there  charges  me 


362  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Oct.  13 

with  the  monstrous  crime  of  now  proclaiming 
on  the  stump  the  same  doctrine  that  I  carried 
out  in  1850,  by  supporting  Clay's  compromise 
measures.  The  "Union"  also  charges  that  I  am 
now  proclaiming  the  same  doctrine  that  I  did 
in  1854  m  support  of  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska 
bill.  It  is  shocked  that  I  should  now  stand 
where  I  stood  in  1850,  when  I  was  supported 
by  Clay,  Webster,  Cass,  and  the  great  men  of 
that  day,  and  where  I  stood  in  1854,  and  in 
1856,  when  Mr.  Buchanan  was  elected  Presi 
dent.  It  goes  on  to  prove,  and  succeeds  in  prov 
ing,  from  my  speeches  in  Congress  on  Clay's 
compromise  measures,  that  I  held  the  same  doc 
trines  at  that  time  that  I  do  now,  and  then 
proves  that  by  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  I 
advanced  the  same  doctrine  that  I  now  advance. 
It  remarks: 

So  much  for  the  course  taken  by  Judge  Douglas 
on  the  compromises  of  1850.  The  record  shows,  be 
yond  the  possibility  of  cavil  or  dispute,  that  he  ex 
pressly  intended  in  those  bills  to  give  the  territorial 
legislatures  power  to  exclude  slavery.  How  stands 
his  record  in  the  memorable  session  of  1854,  with 
reference  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  itself?  We 
shall  not  overhaul  the  votes  that  were  given  on  that 
notable  measure.  Our  space  will  not  afford  it.  We 
have  his  own  words,  however,  delivered  in  his  speech 
closing  the  great  debate  on  that  bill  on  the  night  of 


1858]  Reply  at  Quincy  363 

March  3,  1854,  to  show  that  he  meant  to  do  in  1854 
precisely  what  he  had  meant  to  do  in  1858.  The 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill  being  upon  its  passage,  he  said : 

It  then  quotes  my  remarks  upon  the  passage 
of  the  hill  as  follows: 

The  principle  which  we  propose  to  carry  into  ef 
fect  by  this  bill  is  this :  That  Congress  shall  neither 
legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor  out 
of  the  same ;  but  the  people  shall  be  left  free  to  regu 
late  their  domestic  concerns  in  their  own  way,  subject 
only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  In 
order  to  carry  this  principle  into  practical  operation, 
it  becomes  necessary  to  remove  whatever  legal  ob 
stacles  might  be  found  in  the  way  of  its  free  exercise. 
It  is  only  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  this  great 
fundamental  principle  of  self-government  that  the  bill 
renders  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act  in 
operative  and  void. 

Now,  let  me  ask,  will  those  senators  who  have  ar 
raigned  me,  or  any  one  of  them,  have  the  assurance 
to  rise  in  his  place  and  declare  that  this  great  prin 
ciple  was  never  thought  of  or  advocated  as  applicable 
to  territorial  bills  in  1850;  that  from  that  session  un 
til  the  present,  nobody  ever  thought  of  incorporating 
this  principle  in  all  new  territorial  organizations,  etc., 
etc.?  I  will  begin  with  the  compromises  of  1850. 
Any  senator  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine  our 
journals  will  find  that  on  the  25th  of  March  of  that 
year  I  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Territories 
two  bills,  including  the  following  measures:  the  ad- 


364  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Oct.  13 

mission  of  California,  a  territorial  government  for 
Utah,  a  territorial  government  for  New  Mexico,  and 
the  adjustment  of  the  Texas  boundary.  These  bills 
proposed  to  leave  the  people  of  Utah  and  New  Mexi 
co  free  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for  themselves, 
in  the  precise  language  of  the  Nebraska  bill  now  un 
der  discussion.  A  few  weeks  afterward  the  commit 
tee  of  thirteen  took  those  bills  and  put  a  wafer  be 
tween  them  and  reported  them  back  to  the  Senate  as 
one  bill,  with  some  slight  amendments.  One  of  these 
amendments  was  that  the  territorial  legislatures 
should  not  legislate  upon  the  subject  of  African  slav 
ery.  I  objected  to  this  provision,  upon  the  ground 
that  it  subverted  the  great  principle  of  self-govern 
ment,  upon  which  the  bill  had  been  originally  framed 
by  the  territorial  committee.  On  the  first  trial  the 
Senate  refused  to  strike  it  out,  but  subsequently  did 
so,  upon  full  debate,  in  order  to  establish  that  prin 
ciple  as  the  rule  of  action  in  territorial  organizations. 

The  "Union"  comments  thus  on  my  speech 
on  that  occasion : 

Thus  it  is  seen  that,  in  framing  the  Nebraska-Kan 
sas  bill,  Judge  Douglas  framed  it  in  the  terms  and 
upon  the  model  of  those  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico, 
and  that  in  the  debate  he  took  pains  expressly  to  re 
vive  the  recollection  of  the  voting  which  had  taken 
place  upon  amendments  affecting  the  powers  of  the 
territorial  legislatures  over  the  subject  of  slavery  in 
the  bills  of  1850,  in  order  to  give  the  same  meaning, 
force,  and  effect  to  the  Nebraska-Kansas  bill  on  this 


1858]  Reply  at  Quincy  365 

subject  as  had  been  given  to  those  of  Utah  and  New 
Mexico. 

The  "Union"  proves  the  following  proposi 
tions:  First,  that  I  sustained  Clay's  compro 
mise  measures  on  the  ground  that  they  estab 
lished  the  principle  of  self-government  in  the 
Territories.  Secondly,  that  I  brought  in  the 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill,  founded  upon  the 
same  principles  as  Clay's  compromise  measures 
of  1850;  and  thirdly,  that  my  Freeport  speech 
is  in  exact  accordance  with  those  principles. 
And  what  do  you  think  is  the  imputation  that 
the  "Union"  casts  upon  me  for  all  this?  It  says 
that  my  Freeport  speech  is  not  Democratic,  and 
that  I  was  not  a  Democrat  in  1854  or  'm  ^50! 
Now,  is  not  that  funny?  Think  that  the  author 
of  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  was  not  a  Dem 
ocrat  when  he  introduced  it!  The  "Union" 
says  I  was  not  a  sound  Democrat  in  1850,  nor 
in  1854,  nor  in  1856,  nor  am  I  in  1858,  because 
I  have  always  taken  and  now  occupy  the  ground 
that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a 
State,  have  the  right  to  decide  for  themselves 
whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  in  a  Ter 
ritory.  I  wish  to  cite,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Washington  "Union"  and  the  followers  of  that 
sheet,  one  authority  on  that  point,  and  I  hope 
the  authority  will  be  deemed  satisfactory  to  that 


366  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Oct.  13 

class  of  politicians.  I  will  read  from  Mr.  Bu 
chanan's  letter  accepting  the  nomination  of  the 
Democratic  convention  for  the  presidency. 
You  know  that  Mr.  Buchanan,  after  he  was 
nominated,  declared  to  the  Keystone  Club,  in  a 
public  speech,  that  he  was  no  longer  James  Bu 
chanan,  but  the  embodiment  of  the  Democratic 
platform.  In  his  letter  to  the  committee  which 
informed  him  of  his  nomination,  accepting  it, 
he  defined  the  meaning  of  the  Kansas  and  Ne 
braska  bill  and  the  Cincinnati  platform  in  these 
words : 

The  recent  legislation  of  Congress  respecting  do 
mestic  slavery,  derived  as  it  has  been  from  the  origi 
nal  and  pure  fountain  of  legitimate  political  power, 
the  will  of  the  majority,  promises  ere  long  to  allay 
the  dangerous  excitement.  This  legislation  is 
founded  upon  principles  as  ancient  as  free  govern 
ment  itself,  and  in  accordance  with  them  has  simply 
declared  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those 
of  a  State,  shall  decide  for  themselves  whether  slav 
ery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits. 

Thus  you  see  that  James  Buchanan  accepted 
the  nomination  at  Cincinnati  on  the  condition 
that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a 
State,  should  be  left  to  decide  for  themselves 
whether  slavery  should  or  should  not  exist 
within  their  limits.  I  sustained  James  Bu 
chanan  for  the  presidency  on  that  platform  as 


1858]  Reply    at   guincy  367 

adopted  at  Cincinnati  and  expounded  by  him 
self.  He  was  elected  president  on  that  plat 
form,  and  now  we  are  told  by  the  Washington 
"Union"  that  no  man  is  a  true  Democrat  who 
stands  on  the  platform  on  which  Mr.  Buchanan 
was  nominated,  and  which  he  has  explained  and 
expounded  himself.  We  are  told  that  a  man 
is  not  a  Democrat  who  stands  by  Clay,  Web 
ster,  and  Cass,  and  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850,  and  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  of  1854. 
Whether  a  man  be  a  Democrat  or  not  on  that 
platform,  I  intend  to  stand  there  as  long  as  I 
have  life.  I  intend  to  cling  firmly  to  that  great 
principle  which  declares  the  right  of  each  State 
and  each  Territory  to  settle  the  question  of  slav 
ery,  and  every  other  domestic  question,  for 
themselves.  I  hold  that  if  they  want  a  slave 
State,  they  have  a  right,  under  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  to  make  it  so,  and  if  they 
want  a  free  State,  it  is  their  right  to  have  it. 
But  the  "Union,"  in  advocating  the  claims  of 
Lincoln  over  me  to  the  Senate,  lays  down  two 
unpardonable  heresies  which  it  says  I  advocate. 
The  first  is  the  right  of  the  people  of  a  Terri 
tory,  the  same  as  a  State,  to  decide  for  them 
selves  the  question  whether  slavery  shall  exist 
within  their  limits,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Bu 
chanan;  and  the  second  is  that  a  constitution 
shall  be  submitted  to  the  people  of  a  Territory 


368  Stephen  A.   Douglas      [Oct.  13 

for  its  adoption  or  rejection  before  their  admis 
sion  as  a  State  under  it.  It  so  happens  that  Mr. 
Buchanan  is  pledged  to  both  these  heresies,  for 
supporting  which  the  Washington  "Union"  has 
read  me  out  of  the  Democratic  church.  In  his 
annual  message  he  said  he  trusted  that  the  ex 
ample  of  the  Minnesota  case  would  be  followed 
in  all  future  cases  requiring  a  submission  of  the 
constitution;  and  in  his  letter  of  acceptance  he 
said  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  the  same  as 
a  State,  had  the  right  to  decide  for  themselves 
whether  slavery  should  exist  within  their  limits. 
Thus  you  find  that  this  little  corrupt  gang  who 
control  the  "Union,"  and  wish  to  elect  Lin 
coln  in  preference  to  me, — because,  as  they  say, 
of  these  two  heresies  which  I  support, — de 
nounce  President  Buchanan  when  they  de 
nounce  me,  if  he  stands  now  by  the  principles 
upon  which  he  was  elected.  Will  they  pretend 
that  he  does  not  now  stand  by  the  principles  on 
which  he  was  elected?  Do  they  hold  that  he 
has  abandoned  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  the 
Cincinnati  platform,  and  his  own  letter  accept 
ing  his  nomination,  all  of  which  declare  the 
right  of  the  people  of  a  Territory,  the  same  as 
a  State,  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for  them 
selves?  I  will  not  believe  that  he  has  betrayed 
or  intends  to  betray  the  platform  which  elected 
him;  but  if  he  does,  I  will  not  follow  him.  I 


1858]  Reply  at   Quincy  369 

will  stand  by  that  great  principle,  no  matter 
who  may  desert  it.  I  intend  to  stand  by  it  for 
the  purpose  of  preserving  peace  between  the 
North  and  the  South,  the  free  and  the  slave 
States. 

If  each  State  will  only  agree  to  mind  its  own 
business,  and  let  its  neighbors  alone,  there  will 
be  peace  forever  between  us.  We  in  Illinois 
tried  slavery  when  a  Territory,  and  found  it  was 
not  good  for  us  in  this  climate,  and  with  our 
surroundings,  and  hence  we  abolished  it.  We 
then  adopted  a  free-State  constitution,  as  we 
had  a  right  to  do.  In  this  State  we  have  declared 
that  a  negro  shall  not  be  a  citizen,  and  we  have 
also  declared  that  he  shall  not  be  a  slave.  We 
had  a  right  to  adopt  that  policy.  Missouri  has 
just  as  good  a  right  to  adopt  the  other  policy. 
I  am  now  speaking  of  rights  under  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  not  of  moral  or  religious  rights.  I  do 
not  discuss  the  morals  of  the  people  of  Mis 
souri,  but  let  them  settle  that  matter  for  them 
selves. 

I  hold  that  the  people  of  the  slave-holding 
States  are  civilized  men  as  well  as  ourselves; 
that  they  bear  consciences  as  well  as  we,  and 
that  they  are  accountable  to  God  and  their 
posterity,  and  not  to  us.  It  is  for  them  to  de 
cide,  therefore,  the  moral  and  religious  right  of 
the  slavery  question  for  themselves  within  their 


370  Stephen   A.   Douglas      [Oct.  13 

own  limits.  I  assert  that  they  had  as  much 
right  under  the  Constitution  to  adopt  the  sys 
tem  of  policy  which  they  have  as  we  had  to 
adopt  ours.  So  it  is  with  every  other  State  in 
this  Union.  Let  each  State  stand  firmly  by  that 
great  constitutional  right,  let  each  State  mind 
its  own  business  and  let  its  neighbors  alone,  and 
there  will  be  no  trouble  on  this  question.  If 
we  will  stand  by  that  principle,  then  Mr.  Lin 
coln  will  find  that  this  republic  can  exist  for 
ever  divided  into  free  and  slave  States,  as  our 
fathers  made  it,  and  the  people  of  each  State 
have  decided.  Stand  by  that  great  principle, 
and  we  can  go  on  as  we  have  done,  increasing  in 
wealth,  in  population,  in  power,  and  in  all  the 
elements  of  greatness,  until  we  shall  be  the  ad 
miration  and  terror  of  the  world. 

We  can  go  on  and  enlarge  as  our  population 
increases  and  requires  more  room,  until  we  make 
this  continent  one  ocean-bound  republic.  Un 
der  that  principle  the  United  States  can  perform 
that  great  mission,  that  destiny,  which  Provi 
dence  has  marked  out  for  us.  Under  that  princi 
ple  we  can  receive  with  entire  safety  that  stream 
of  intelligence  which  is  constantly  flowing  from 
the  Old  World  to  the  New,  filling  up  our 
prairies,  clearing  our  wildernesses,  and  building 
cities,  towns,  railroads,  and  other  internal  im 
provements,  and  thus  make  this  the  asylum  of 


1858]  Reply    at   Quincy  371 

the  oppressed  of  the  whole  earth.  We  have  this 
great  mission  to  perform,  and  it  can  only  be  per 
formed  by  adhering  faithfully  to  that  principle 
of  self-government  on  which  our  institutions 
were  all  established.  I  repeat  that  the  prin 
ciple  is  the  right  of  each  State,  each  Territory, 
to  decide  this  slavery  question  for  itself,  to  have 
slavery  or  not,  as  it  chooses,  and  it  does  not  be 
come  Mr.  Lincoln,  or  anybody  else,  to  tell  the 
people  of  Kentucky  that  they  have  no  con 
sciences,  that  they  are  living  in  a  state  of  ini 
quity,  and  that  they  are  cherishing  an  institu 
tion  to  their  bosoms  in  violation  of  the  law  of 
God.  Better  for  him  to  adopt  the  doctrine  of 
"Judge  not,  lest  ye  shall  be  judged."  Let  him 
perform  his  own  duty  at  home,  and  he  will  have 
a  better  fate  in  the  future.  I  think  there  are 
objects  of  charity  enough  in  the  free  States  to 
excite  the  sympathies  and  open  the  pockets  of 
all  the  benevolence  we  have  amongst  us,  without 
going  abroad  in  search  of  negroes,  of  whose  con 
dition  we  know  nothing.  We  have  enough  ob 
jects  of  charity  at  home,  and  it  is  our  duty  to 
take  care  of  our  own  poor,  and  our  own  suffer 
ing,  before  we  go  abroad  to  intermeddle  with 
other  people's  business. 

My  friends,  I  am  told  that  my  time  is  within 
two  minutes  of  expiring.  I  have  omitted  many 
topics  that  I  would  like  to  have  discussed  be- 


372  Stephen    A.    Douglas       [Oct.  13 

fore  you  at  length.  There  were  many  points 
touched  by  Mr.  Lincoln  that  I  have  not  been 
able  to  take  up  for  the  want  of  time.  I  have 
hurried  over  each  subject  that  I  have  discussed 
as  rapidly  as  possible,  so  as  to  omit  but  few; 
but  one  hour  and  a  half  is  not  time  sufficient  for 
a  man  to  discuss  at  length  one  half  of  the  great 
questions  which  are  now  dividing  the  public 
mind 

In  conclusion,  I  desire  to  return  to  you  my 
grateful  acknowledgments  for  the  kindness  and 
the  courtesy  with  which  you  have  listened  to 
me.  It  is  something  remarkable  that  in  an  au 
dience  as  vast  as  this,  composed  of  men  of  op 
posite  politics  and  views,  with  their  passions 
highly  excited,  there  should  be  so  much  cour 
tesy,  kindness,  and  respect  exhibited  not  only 
toward  one  another,  but  toward  the  speakers, 
and  I  feel  that  it  is  due  to  you  that  I  should  thus 
express  my  gratitude  for  the  kindness  with 
which  you  have  treated  me. 


1858]         Rejoinder  at   Quincy          373 


Mr.  Lincoln's  Rejoinder  in  the  Quincy  Joint 
Debate. 

MY  FRIENDS :     Since  Judge  Douglas 
has  said  to  you  in  his  conclusion  that 
he  had  not  time  in  an  hour  and  a  half 
to  answer  all  I  had  said  in  an  hour,  it  follows  of 
course  that  I  will  not  be  able  to  answer  in  half 
an  hour  all  that  he  said  in  an  hour  and  a  half. 

I  wish  to  return  to  Judge  Douglas  my  pro 
found  thanks  for  his  public  annunciation  here 
to-day  to  be  put  on  record,  that  his  system  of 
policy  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery 
contemplates  that  it  shall  last  forever.  We  are 
getting  a  little  nearer  the  true  issue  of  this  con 
troversy,  and  I  am  profoundly  grateful  for  this 
one  sentence.  Judge  Douglas  asks  you,  "Why 
cannot  the  institution  of  slavery,  or  rather,  why 
cannot  the  nation,  part  slave  and  part  free,  con 
tinue  as  our  fathers  made  it  forever?"  In  the 
first  place,  I  insist  that  our  fathers  did  not  make 
this  nation  half  slave  and  half  free,  or  part  slave 
and  part  free.  I  insist  that  they  found  the  in 
stitution  of  slavery  existing  here.  They  did  not 
make  it  so,  but  they  left  it  so  because  they  knew 
of  no  way  to  get  rid  of  it  at  that  time.  When 


374  Abraham   Lincoln         [Oct.  13 

Judge  Douglas  undertakes  to  say  that,  as  a  mat 
ter  of  choice,  the  fathers  of  the  government 
made  this  nation  part  slave  and  part  free,  he 
assumes  what  is  historically  a  falsehood.  More 
than  that:  when  the  fathers  of  the  government 
cut  off  the  source  of  slavery  by  the  abolition  of 
the  slave-trade,  and  adopted  a  system  of  re 
stricting  it  from  the  new  Territories  where  it 
had  not  existed,  I  maintain  that  they  placed  it 
where  they  understood,  and  all  sensible  men 
understood,  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate 
extinction;  and  when  Judge  Douglas  asks  me 
why  it  cannot  continue  as  our  fathers  made  it, 
I  ask  him  why  he  and  his  friends  could  not  let 
it  remain  as  our  fathers  made  it? 

It  is  precisely  all  I  ask  of  him  in  relation  to 
the  institution  of  slavery,  that  it  shall  be  placed 
upon  the  basis  that  our  fathers  placed  it  upon. 
Mr.  Brooks,  of  South  Carolina,  once  said,  and 
truly  said,  that  when  this  government  was  es 
tablished,  no  one  expected  the  institution  of 
slavery  to  last  until  this  day;  and  that  the  men 
who  formed  this  government  were  wiser  and 
better  than  the  men  of  these  days;  but  the  men 
of  these  days  had  experience  which  the  fathers 
had  not,  and  that  experience  had  taught  them  the 
invention  of  the  cotton-gin,  and  this  had  made 
the  perpetuation  of  the  institution  of  slavery  a 
necessity  in  this  country.  Judge  Douglas  could 


1858]         Rejoinder   at  Quincy  375 

not  let  it  stand  upon  the  basis  where  our  fathers 
placed  it,  but  removed  it,  and  put  it  upon  the 
cotton-gin  basis.  It  is  a  question,  therefore,  for 
him  and  his  friends  to  answer — why  they  could 
not  let  it  remain  where  the  fathers  of  the  gov 
ernment  originally  placed  it. 

I  hope  nobody  has  understood  me  as  trying 
to  sustain  the  doctrine  that  we  have  a  right  to 
quarrel  with  Kentucky  or  Virginia,  or  any  of 
the  slave  States,  about  the  institution  of  slavery 
— thus  giving  the  judge  an  opportunity  to  make 
himself  eloquent  and  valiant  against  us  in  fight 
ing  for  their  rights.  I  expressly  declared  in  my 
opening  speech  that  I  had  neither  the  inclina 
tion  to  exercise,  nor  the  belief  in  the  existence 
of,  the  right  to  interfere  with  the  States  of  Ken 
tucky  or  Virginia  in  doing  as  they  pleased  with 
slavery  or  any  other  existing  institution.  Then 
what  becomes  of  all  his  eloquence  in  behalf  of 
the  rights  of  States,  which  are  assailed  by  no 
living  man? 

But  I  have  to  hurry  on,  for  I  have  but  a  half- 
hour.  The  judge  has  informed  me,  or  in 
formed  this  audience,  that  the  Washington 
"Union"  is  laboring  for  my  election  to  the 
United  States  Senate.  This  is  news  to  me — 
not  very  ungrateful  news  either.  [Turning  to 
Mr.  W.  H.  Carlin,  who  was  on  the  stand:]  I 
hope  that  Carlin  will  be  elected  to  the  State 


376  Abraham   Lincoln         [Oct.  13 

Senate  and  will  vote  for  me.  [Mr.  Carlin 
shook  his  head.]  Carlin  don't  fall  in,  I  per 
ceive,  and  I  suppose  he  will  not  do  much  for 
me;  but  I  am  glad  of  all  the  support  I  can  get 
anywhere,  if  I  can  get  it  without  practising  any 
deception  to  obtain  it.  In  respect  to  this  large 
portion  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech,  in  which  he 
tries  to  show  that  in  the  controversy  between 
himself  and  the  administration  party  he  is  in 
the  right,  I  do  not  feel  myself  at  all  competent 
or  inclined  to  answer  him.  I  say  to  him,  Give 
it  to  them — give  it  to  them  just  all  you  can; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  I  say  to  Carlin,  and  Jake 
Davis,  and  to  this  man  Wagley  up  here  in  Han 
cock,  Give  it  to  Douglas — just  pour  it  into  him. 
Now  in  regard  to  this  matter  of  the  Dred 
Scott  decision,  I  wish  to  say  a  word  or  two. 
After  all,  the  judge  will  not  say  whether,  if  a 
decision  is  made  holding  that  the  people  of  the 
States  cannot  exclude  slavery,  he  will  support  it 
or  not.  He  obstinately  refuses  to  say  what  he 
will  do  in  that  case.  The  judges  of  the  Su 
preme  Court  as  obstinately  refused  to  say  what 
they  would  do  on  this  subject.  Before  this  I 
reminded  him  that  at  Galesburg  he  said  the 
judges  had  expressly  declared  the  contrary,  and 
you  remember  that  in  my  opening  speech  I  told 
him  I  had  the  book  containing  that  decision 
here,  and  I  would  thank  him  to  lay  his  finger 


1858]          Rejoinder  at  Quincy  377 

on  the  place  where  any  such  thing  was  said. 
He  has  occupied  his  hour  and  a  half,  and  he 
has  not  ventured  to  try  to  sustain  his  assertion. 
He  never  will.     But  he  is  desirous  of  knowing 
how  we  are  going  to  reverse  the  Dred  Scott  de 
cision.     Judge   Douglas   ought  to   know  how. 
Did  not  he  and  his  political  friends  find  a  way 
to  reverse  the  decision  of  that  same  court  in 
favor  of  the  constitutionality  of  the   national 
bank?     Did  n't  they  find  a  way  to  do  it  so 
effectually  that  they  have  reversed  it  as  com 
pletely  as  any  decision  ever  was  reversed,  so  far 
as  its  practical  operation  is  concerned?     And, 
let  me  ask  you,  did  n't  Judge  Douglas  find  a 
way  to   reverse  the   decision  of  our  Supreme 
Court,  when  it  decided  that  Carlin's  father — 
old   Governor    Carlin — had   not   the   constitu 
tional  power  to  remove  a  secretary  of  state? 
Did  he  not  appeal  to  the  "mobs,"  as  he  calls 
them?     Did  he  not  make  speeches  in  the  lobby 
to  show  how  villainous  that  decision  was,  and 
how  it  ought  to  be  overthrown?     Did  he  not 
succeed,  too,  in  getting  an  act  passed  by  the  leg 
islature  to  have  it  overthrown?     And  did  n't 
he  himself  sit  down  on  that  bench  as  one  of  the 
five  added  judges  who  were  to  overslaugh  the 
four  old  ones — getting  his  name  of  "judge"  in 
that  way  and  in  no  other?     If  there  is  a  villainy 
in  using  disrespect  or  making  opposition  to  Su- 


378  Abraham   Lincoln         [Oct.  13 

preme  Court  decisions,  I  commend  it  to  Judge 
Douglas's  earnest  consideration.  I  know  of  no 
man  in  the  State  of  Illinois  who  ought  to  know 
so  well  about  how  much  villainy  it  takes  to 
oppose  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  as  our 
honorable  friend,  Stephen  A.  Douglas. 

Judge   Douglas   also   makes   the   declaration 
that  I  say  the  Democrats  are  bound  by  the  Dred 
Scott  decision,  while  the  Republicans  are  not. 
In  the  sense  in  which  he  argues,  I  never  said  it; 
but  I  will  tell  you  what  I  have  said  and  what 
I  do  not  hesitate  to  repeat  to-day.     I  have  said 
that,  as  the  Democrats  believe  that  decision  to 
be  correct,  and  that  the  extension  of  slavery  is 
affirmed  in  the  National  Constitution,  they  are 
bound  to  support  it  as  such ;  and  I  will  tell  you 
here  that  General  Jackson  once  said  each  man 
was  bound  to  support  the  Constitution,  "as  he 
understood  it."     Now,  Judge  Douglas  under 
stands  the  Constitution  according  to  the  Dred 
Scott  decision,  and  he  is  bound  to  support  it  as 
he  understands  it.     I  understand  it  another  way, 
and  therefore  I  am  bound  to  support  it  in  the 
way  in  which  I  understand  it.     And  as  Judge 
Douglas  believes  that  decision  to  be  correct,  I 
will  remake  that  argument  if  I  have  time  to  do 
so.     Let  me  talk  to  some  gentleman  down  there 
among  you  who  looks  me  in  the  face.     We  will 
say  you  are  a  member  of  the  territorial  legisb- 


1858]         Rejoinder   at   Quincy  379 

ture,  and,  like  Judge  Douglas,  you  believe  that 
the  right  to  take  and  hold  slaves  there  is  a  con 
stitutional  right.  The  first  thing  you  do  is  to 
swear  you  will  support  the  Constitution  and  all 
rights  guaranteed  therein ;  that  you  will,  when 
ever  your  neighbor  needs  your  legislation  to 
support  his  constitutional  rights,  not  withhold 
that  legislation.  If  you  withhold  that  necessary 
legislation  for  the  support  of  the  Constitution 
and  constitutional  rights,  do  you  not  commit 
perjury?  I  ask  every  sensible  man  if  that  is 
not  so?  That  is  undoubtedly  just  so,  say  what 
you  please.  Now,  that  is  precisely  what  Judge 
Douglas  says — that  this  is  a  constitutional  right. 
Does  the  judge  mean  to  say  that  the  territorial 
legislature  in  legislating  may,  by  withholding 
necessary  laws  or  by  passing  unfriendly  laws, 
nullify  that  constitutional  right?  Does  he 
mean  to  say  that?  Does  he  mean  to  ignore  the 
proposition,  so  long  and  well  established  in  law, 
that  what  you  cannot  do  directly,  you  cannot 
do  indirectly?  Does  he  mean  that?  The  truth 
about  the  matter  is  this:  Judge  Douglas  has 
sung  paeans  to  his  "popular  sovereignty"  doc 
trine  until  his  Supreme  Court,  cooperating  with 
him,  has  squatted  his  squatter  sovereignty  out. 
But  he  will  keep  up  this  species  of  humbuggery 
about  squatter  sovereignty.  He  has  at  last  in 
vented  this  sort  of  do-nothing  sovereignty — 


380  Abraham   Lincoln         [Oct.  13 

that  the  people  may  exclude  slavery  by  a  sort 
of  "sovereignty"  that  is  exercised  by  doing  noth 
ing  at  all.  Is  not  that  running  his  popular  sov 
ereignty  down  awfully?  Has  it  not  got  down 
as  thin  as  the  homeopathic  soup  that  was  made 
by  boiling  the  shadow  of  a  pigeon  that  had 
starved  to  death?  But  at  last,  when  it  is 
brought  to  the  test  of  close  reasoning,  there  is 
not  even  that  thin  decoction  of  it  left.  It  is  a 
presumption  impossible  in  the  domain  of 
thought.  It  is  precisely  no  other  than  the  put 
ting  of  that  most  unphilosophical  proposition, 
that  two  bodies  can  occupy  the  same  space  at 
the  same  time. 

The  Dred  Scott  decision  covers  the  whole 
ground,  and  while  it  occupies  it,  there  is  no 
room  even  for  the  shadow  of  a  starved  pigeon 
to  occupy  the  same  ground. 

Judge  Douglas,  in  reply  to  what  I  have  said 
about  having  upon  a  previous  occasion  made  the 
same  speech  at  Ottawa  as  the  one  he  took  an 
extract  from  at  Charleston,  says  it  only  shows 
that  I  practised  the  deception  twice.  Now,  my 
friends,  are  any  of  you  obtuse  enough  to  swal 
low  that?  Judge  Douglas  had  said  I  had  made 
a  speech  at  Charleston  that  I  would  not  make 
up  north,  and  I  turned  around  and  answered 
him  by  showing  I  had  made  that  same  speech 
up  north — had  made  it  Ottawa — made  it  in  his 


1858]         Rejoinder  at  Quincy  381 

hearing — made  it  in  the  Abolition  district — in 
Love  joy's  district — in  the  personal  presence  of 
Lovejoy  himself — in  the  same  atmosphere  ex 
actly  in  which  I  had  made  my  Chicago  speech, 
of  which  he  complains  so  much. 

Now,  in  relation  to  my  not  having  said  any 
thing  about  the  quotation  from  the  Chicago 
speech.  He  thinks  that  is  a  terrible  subject  for 
me  to  handle.  Why,  gentlemen,  I  can  show 
you  that  the  substance  of  the  Chicago  speech  I 
delivered  two  years  ago  in  "Egypt,"  as  he  calls 
it.  It  was  down  at  Springfield.  That  speech 
is  here  in  this  book,  and  I  could  turn  to  it  and 
read  it  to  you  but  for  the  lack  of  time.  I  have 
not  now  the  time  to  read  it.  ["Read  it,  read 
it."] 

No,  gentlemen,  I  am  obliged  to  use  discre 
tion  in  disposing  most  advantageously  of  my 
brief  time.  The  judge  has  taken  great  excep 
tion  to  my  adopting  the  heretical  statement 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  that  "all 
men  are  created  equal,"  and  he  has  a  great  deal 
to  say  about  negro  equality.  I  want  to  say  that 
in  sometimes  alluding  to  the  Declaration  of  In 
dependence,  I  have  only  uttered  the  sentiments 
that  Henry  Clay  used  to  hold.  Allow  me  to 
occupy  your  time  a  moment  with  what  he  said. 
Mr.  Clay  was  at  one  time  called  upon  in  Indi 
ana,  and  in  a  way  that  I  suppose  was  very  insult- 


382  Abraham  Lincoln         [Oct.  13 

ing,  to  liberate  his  slaves,  and  he  made  a  written 
reply  to  that  application,  and  one  portion  of  it 
is  in  these  words: 

What  is  the  foundation  of  this  appeal  to  me  in 
Indiana  to  liberate  the  slaves  under  my  care  in  Ken 
tucky?  It  is  a  general  declaration  in  the  act  an 
nouncing  to  the  world  the  independence  of  the 
thirteen  American  colonies,  that  "  men  are  created 
equal."  Now,  as  an  abstract  principle,  there  is  no 
doubt  of  the  truth  of  that  declaration,  and  it  is  desir 
able  in  the  original  construction  of  society,  and  in 
organized  societies,  to  keep  it  in  view  as  a  great 
fundamental  principle. 

When  I  sometimes,  in  relation  to  the  organi 
zation  of  new  societies  in  new  countries,  where 
the  soil  is  clean  and  clear,  insist  that  we  should 
keep  that  principle  in  view,  Judge  Douglas  will 
have  it  that  I  want  a  negro  wife.  He  never 
can  be  brought  to  understand  that  there  is  any 
middle  ground  on  this  subject.  I  have  lived 
until  my  fiftieth  year,  and  have  never  had  a 
negro  woman  either  for  a  slave  or  a  wife,  and 
I  think  I  can  live  fifty  centuries,  for  that  mat 
ter,  without  having  one  for  either.  I  maintain 
that  you  may  take  Judge  Douglas's  quotations 
from  my  Chicago  speech,  and  from  my  Charles 
ton  speech,  and  the  Galesburg  speech, — in  his 
speech  of  to-day, — and  compare  them  over,  and 


1858]         Rejoinder   at   Quincy  383 

I  am  willing  to  trust  them  with  you  upon  his 
proposition  that  they  show  rascality  or  double- 
dealing.  I  deny  that  they  do. 

The  judge  does  not  seem  disposed  to  have 
peace,  but  I  find  he  is  disposed  to  have  a  per 
sonal  warfare  with  me.  He  says  that  my  oath 
would  not  be  taken  against  the  bare  word  of 
Charles  H.  Lanphier  or  Thomas  L.  Harris. 
Well,  that  is  altogether  a  matter  of  opinion.  It 
is  certainly  not  for  me  to  vaunt  my  word  against 
the  oaths  of  these  gentlemen,  but  I  will  tell 
Judge  Douglas  again  the  facts  upon  which  I 
"dared"  to  say  they  proved  a  forgery.  I 
pointed  out  at  Galesburg  that  the  publication 
of  these  resolutions  in  the  Illinois  "State  Regis 
ter"  could  not  have  been  the  result  of  accident, 
as  the  proceedings  of  that  meeting  bore  unmis 
takable  evidence  of  being  done  by  a  man  who 
knew  it  was  a  forgery;  that  it  was  a  publication 
partly  taken  from  the  real  proceedings  of  the 
convention,  and  partly  from  the  proceedings  of 
a  convention  at  another  place;  which  showed 
that  he  had  the  real  proceedings  before  himr 
and,  taking  one  part  of  the  resolutions,  he  threw 
out  another  part,  and  substituted  false  and 
fraudulent  ones  in  their  stead.  I  pointed  that 
out  to  him,  and  also  that  his  friend  Lanphier, 
who  was  editor  of  the  "Register"  at  that  time 
and  now  is,  must  have  known  how  it  was  done. 


384  Abraham   Lincoln         [Oct.  13 

Now  whether  he  did  it,  or  got  some  friend  to 
do  it  for  him,  I  could  not  tell,  but  he  certainly 
knew  all  about  it.  I  pointed  out  to  Judge 
Douglas  that  in  his  Freeport  speech  he  had 
promised  to  investigate  that  matter.  Does  he 
now  say  he  did  not  make  that  promise?  I  have 
a  right  to  ask  why  he  did  not  keep  it?  I  call 
upon  him  to  tell  here  to-day  why  he  did  not 
keep  that  promise?  That  fraud  has  been  traced 
up  so  that  it  lies  between  him,  Harris,  and  Lan- 
phier.  There  is  little  room  for  escape  for  Lan- 
phier.  Lanphier  is  doing  the  judge  good  ser 
vice,  and  Douglas  desires  his  word  to  be  taken 
for  the  truth.  He  desires  Lanphier  to  be  taken 
as  authority  in  what  he  states  in  his  newspaper. 
He  desires  Harris  to  be  taken  as  a  man  of  vast 
credibility,  and  when  this  thing  lies  among 
them,  they  will  not  press  it  to  show  where  the 
guilt  really  belongs.  Now,  as  he  has  said  that 
he  would  investigate  it,  and  implied  that  he 
would  tell  us  the  result  of  his  investigation,  I 
demand  of  him  to  tell  why  he  did  not  investi 
gate  it,  if  he  did  not;  and  if  he  did,  why  he 
won't  tell  the  result.  I  call  upon  him  for  that. 
This  is  the  third  time  that  Judge  Douglas  has 
assumed  that  he  learned  about  these  resolutions 
by  Harris's  attempting  to  use  them  against  Nor 
ton  on  the  floor  of  Congress.  I  tell  Judge 
Douglas  the  public  records  of  the  country  show 


1858]         Rejoinder  at  guincy  385 

that  he  himself  attempted  it  upon  Trumbull  a 
month  before  Harris  tried  them  on  Norton— 
that  Harris  had  the  opportunity  of  learning  it 
from  him,  rather  than  he  from  Harris.  I  now 
ask  his  attention  to  that  part  of  the  record  on 
the  case.  My  friends,  I  am  not  disposed  to  de 
tain  you  longer  in  regard  to  that  matter. 

I  am  told  that  I  still  have  five  minutes  left. 
There  is  another  matter  I  wish  to  call  attention 
to.  He  says,  when  he  discovered  there  was  a 
mistake  in  that  case,  he  came  forward  magnani 
mously,  without  my  calling  his  attention  to  it, 
and  explained  it.  I  will  tell  you  how  he  be 
came  so  magnanimous.  When  the  newspapers 
of  our  side  had  discovered  and  published  it,  and 
put  it  beyond  his  power  to  deny  it,  then  he  came 
forward  and  made  a  virtue  of  necessity  by  ac 
knowledging  it.  Now  he  argues  that  all  the 
point  there  was  in  those  resolutions,  although 
never  passed  at  Springfield,  is  retained  by  their 
being  passed  at  other  localities.  Is  that  true? 
He  said  I  had  a  hand  in  passing  them,  in  his 
opening  speech;  that  I  was  in  the  convention, 
and  helped  to  pass  them.  Do  the  resolutions 
touch  me  at  all?  It  strikes  me  there  is  some 
difference  between  holding  a  man  responsible 
for  an  act  which  he  has  not  done,  and  holding 
him  responsible  for  an  act  that  he  has  done. 
You  will  judge  whether  there  is  any  difference 


386  Abraham   Lincoln         [Oct.  13 

in  the  "spots."  And  he  has  taken  credit  for 
great  magnanimity  in  coming  forward  and  ac 
knowledging  what  is  proved  on  him  beyond 
even  the  capacity  of  Judge  Douglas  to  deny,  and 
he  has  more  capacity  in  that  way  than  any  other 
living  man. 

Then  he  wants  to  know  why  I  won't  with 
draw  the  charge  in  regard  to  a  conspiracy  to 
make  slavery  national,  as  he  had  withdrawn 
the  one  he  made.  May  it  please  his  worship, 
I  will  withdraw  it  when  it  is  proven  false  on 
me  as  that  was  proven  false  on  him.  I  will  add 
a  little  more  than  that.  I  will  withdraw  it 
whenever  a  reasonable  man  shall  be  brought  to 
believe  that  the  charge  is  not  true.  I  have 
asked  Judge  Douglas's  attention  to  certain  mat 
ters  of  fact  tending  to  prove  the  charge  of  a 
conspiracy  to  nationalize  slavery,  and  he  says 
he  convinces  me  that  this  is  all  untrue,  because 
Buchanan  was  not  in  the  country  at  that  time, 
and  because  the  Dred  Scott  case  had  not  then 
got  into  the  Supreme  Court;  and  he  says  that  I 
say  the  Democratic  owners  of  Dred  Scott  got 
up  the  case.  I  never  did  say  that.  I  defy 
Judge  Douglas  to  show  that  I  ever  said  so,  for 
I  never  uttered  it.  [One  of  Mr.  Douglas's  re 
porters  gesticulated  affirmatively  at  Mr.  Lin 
coln.]  I  don't  care  if  your  hireling  does  say 
I  did.  I  tell  you  myself  that  I  never  said  the 


1858]         Rejoinder   at    guincy  387 

"Democratic"  owners  of  Dred  Scott  got  up  the 
case.  I  have  never  pretended  to  know  whether 
Dred  Scott's  owners  were  Democrats  or  Aboli 
tionists,  Free-soilers  or  Border  Ruffians.  I 
have  said  that  there  is  evidence  about  the  case 
tending  to  show  that  it  was  a  made-up  case  for 
the  purpose  of  getting  that  decision.  I  have 
said  that  that  evidence  was  very  strong  in  the 
fact  that  when  Dred  Scott  was  declared  to  be 
a  slave,  the  owner  of  him  made  him  free,  show 
ing  that  he  had  had  the  case  tried,  and  the  ques 
tion  settled,  for  such  use  as  could  be  made  of 
that  decision;  he  cared  nothing  about  the  prop 
erty  thus  declared  to  be  his  by  that  decision. 
But  my  time  is  out,  and  I  can  say  no  more. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(415)642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days 

prior  to  due  date 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


•IK    61991 


